36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 208
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 15, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Environment and Sustainable Development
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1005
| Canadian Heritage
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-78. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-79. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-492. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1010
| SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-493. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Housing in Nunavik
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Young Offenders Act
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1015
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| International Trade Agreements
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-72. Second reading
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1020
1025
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1030
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1035
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1040
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1100
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1105
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1110
1115
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1120
1125
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-71. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1145
1150
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1155
1200
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1205
1210
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1215
1220
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1225
1230
| Division on Motion deferred
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-68. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1255
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1300
| Mr. John McKay |
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1320
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1325
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1350
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1355
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| KHALSA
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| DENTAL HEALTH MONTH
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
1400
| DR. JUDITH HALL
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| LAW DAY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1405
| VICTIMS RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| SAGKEENG FIRST NATION
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| MUNICIPALITY OF CLARE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1410
| ROSAIRE MORIN
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| CANADA EXPORT AWARDS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| THE JUNCTION
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| SEAFREEZ FOODS LIMITED
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1435
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1440
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1445
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| KOSOVO
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
| Hon. John Manley |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1455
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1500
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| THE LATE EDMUND TOBIN ASSELIN
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1510
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1515
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-68. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
1520
1525
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1530
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1535
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1540
1545
1550
| Amendment
|
1555
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1600
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1605
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1630
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1635
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1640
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1700
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1705
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1710
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1730
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Comments by Members
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1735
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-484. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1740
1745
1750
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Comments by Members—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-484. Second reading
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1755
1800
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1805
1810
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1815
1820
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1825
1830
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1835
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1840
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 208
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 15, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these
appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing
committees, a list of which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report
of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development.
[English]
In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, April 28,
1998, your committee has considered Bill C-32, an act to prevent
pollution and to protect the environment and human health in
order to contribute to sustainable development.
1005
It was agreed on Thursday, March 25, 1999, that this bill be
reported with some 159 amendments as a result of 58 meetings.
[Translation]
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, December 1, 1998,
your committee has considered Bill C-48, an act respecting marine
conservation areas, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 68th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs. If the House gives its consent I intend to move
concurrence in the 68th report later this day.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (on behalf of the President of Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Service
Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service
Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence
Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and
to make a consequential amendment to another act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-79, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act
in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-492, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(dangerous offender).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the government has put forward a report
through the solicitor general's office which states that during a
10 year period of time dangerous violent offenders who were
released from prison committed 2,234 new violent crimes which
unnecessarily created a pile of victims across the country.
The reason for that is that no one could retain these people
because they could not be declared dangerous offenders at the
time of their parole date or date of release.
This enactment would provide that an application under section
753 of the Criminal Code, finding that an offender is a dangerous
offender, may be made earlier rather than following the date they
are released from imprisonment for an offence while on parole or
mandatory supervision, or on the date when the sentence expires.
Too many times front line officers and prison officials have
said “Do not release this individual. He is dangerous and he
will do it again”, but the law says we have to. This would
prevent that from happening. We could retain people such as
Fernand Auger, who murdered Melanie Carpenter. That is one
example of the 2,234.
I encourage the government to support this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING ACT, 1999
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-493, an act to promote shipbuilding,
1999.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in this House
a bill to promote shipbuilding in Canada and to make Canada's
shipyards more competitive internationally.
This bill contains three measures sought by the Canadian
shipbuilding association, which represents the management of
Canada's main shipyards, a coalition of the principal unions in
shipbuilding and a number of stakeholders in the area.
I seek the support of all members in this House, because the
measures sought would not only save 4,000 jobs, they would
create new ones in this important industry.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 68th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, of all the difficulties we are having at the present
time and of all the many petitions, this one is becoming the most
referred to petition this year. It is a petition which deals
with the terminology and the permanency of the terminology of
marriage.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition verifies that
people throughout my constituency claim that it is the duty of
parliament to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known
and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected.
[Translation]
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table a petition from the Inuit communities of
Ivujivik and Inukjuak, in Nunavik.
According to the petitioners, neither the federal nor the
provincial government has put up any housing in the past three
years. At the moment, 16 to 20 people are living in three room
houses. The Inuit are extremely upset by the housing conditions
in Nunavik. They consider the situation intolerable. It
contributes to the high incidence of tuberculosis, infectious
diseases and social problems.
The federal government must honour its housing obligations under
the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement.
At the end of October 1998, there was a shortage of 425 houses
in Nunavik.
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of 240 residents of the town of Sundre, who call on
this government to do a number of things regarding the Young
Offenders Act.
In Wild Rose terms, to sum it all up, rather than to go
through each one, it simply means: get serious, start taking
this act seriously, make some significant changes, and stop
tinkering with the young offenders issue.
This request is made on behalf of the Clayton McGloan family of
Calgary.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of my
constituents who have put together two petitions on the sanctity
of marriage.
1015
The petitioners are asking that parliament enact private
member's Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the
Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can
only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
This government talks the talk but has not walked the walk and
these petitioners are asking it to do that.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of Peterborough who are
concerned about the continued existence of 30,000 nuclear
weapons.
They point out that Canada, although with the capacity to build
nuclear weapons, has rejected that option and in so doing has
recognized the military futility of nuclear weapons. They are
also concerned about the re-arming of the Governments of India
and Pakistan with nuclear weapons.
They call on parliament to support the goal of the abolition of
nuclear weapons on earth by Canada advocating the immediate
de-alerting of all nuclear devices, and that Canada join the
nations of the new agenda coalition, and that Canada advocate
within NATO that nuclear weapons have no militarily useful role,
and that additional financial support be allocated to Russia to
ensure the safe and secure disarmament of that country's nuclear
arsenal.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of a number of Canadians, including those from my own
riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in a number of countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also
acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized as a champion
of human rights internationally.
Therefore, they call on the Government of Canada to continue to
speak out against human rights abuses and to seek to bring to
justice those responsible for such abuses.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of
residents throughout British Columbia.
While they do not really say, I suspect they are really
distressed that the signing of international trade agreements,
like the North American Free Trade Agreement, limits the ability
of parliaments to pass legislation to protect the environment and
the health of Canadians.
The petitioners are distressed and are presumably asking the
government to rethink some of the provisions of these trade
agreements.
The Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. member would
seek to comply with the rules in every respect and just give a
brief summary of the petition rather than a discourse on the
implications.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 142 and 149 could be made orders for return, these
returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 142—Mr. Bill Gilmour:
With respect to the
Sydney Tar Ponds in Sydney, Nova Scotia, could the government
provide a concise breakdown of: (a) how much money has the
federal government spent on the Sydney Tar Ponds since 1982; (b)
what projects have been federally funded and for how much; (c)
which companies have received federal contracts and for how much;
(d) will the government table all reports and studies conducted
on the Sydney Tar Ponds?
Return tabled.
Question No. 149—Mr. Rahim Jaffer:
For each of the
following, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Cape Breton
Development Corporation and Entreprise Cape Breton, please
provide the following for each fiscal year from 1993-94 to 1996-
97: (a) number of people on the Board of Directors; (b) how each
Director was remunerated; (c) the total remuneration for each
Director; (d) number of employees; and (e) average and median
salary for all employees?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement
measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax
Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions
Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans
Allowance Act and certain other acts related to the Income Tax
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of
the amendment.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about
this bill and about this subject. If there is one branch of the
department Canadians have learned to hate it is this branch.
We have some definite objections about Bill C-72. It does not
address that two-income families qualify for child care and so
on.
I will go to a specific example I have had in the past few
years, particularly one this spring. I am sure every member of
parliament deals with the Department of National Revenue in an
attempt to help their constituents. I would suggest to that
department, as it brings in new legislation, that it follow some
examples of the treatment of its clients, the citizens of Canada,
with a touch more humanity.
1020
Let me give members a striking example of a case I am working on
which I think is a disgrace. I know a young woman who is
presently raising two children. She works at a full time job but
because she has been deserted by her husband she also works part
time on the weekends. I bring this case to the attention of all
members because I am talking about the treatment of people. We
can do all we like in legislation to write something down, but to
practice it is a different thing.
This young lady has not seen her husband for three years.
Revenue Canada finally—and I give it credit—caught up with her
husband and was able get her the child support that she should
have received for three years. It then sent her a cheque for
$11,500. At the same time, she is being assessed by the
Department of National Revenue as owing $5,500 in income tax. Not
only is that dehumanizing, but this mother is struggling to raise
a 16 year old and a 12 year old and does not have $5,500.
There is something wrong with a system that employs some 40,000
to 45,000 people, who can be rigid and efficient in tax
collection, but surely they could be a little more humanistic
when it comes to dealing with people. The people who are calling
Revenue Canada and signing these letters are human beings and
deserve to be treated as such.
I realize that the Department of National Revenue does deal with
money and it is going to have agitations. However, I beg that
when we get into this bill that we should play fair with people.
I am sure each one of us in our history have had some grips with
income tax. I am sure everybody has. I can pick out a dozen
examples over the last two years where people have been treated
as numbers. Quite frankly, even when the department is aware of
the individual's circumstances it ignores them. This is not
right for the Government of Canada.
I wrote a letter this morning to this young lady stating that I
would do my very best to see that she does not have to borrow
money to pay the federal government this additional $5,500. This
support money was to have been spread over three years so this
$5,500 should have been considerably less. This is not the only
case I have to deal with. I have 12 other cases on file. I am
not just citing one example.
I could stand here until midnight tonight citing examples that
sometimes take a year before national revenue realizes it has
erred. I have never seen a letter of apology from Revenue Canada
but I have from other departments. There is never a thank you.
Many of these people, out of sheer determination, go after the
Department of National Revenue and pay their own legal costs.
These costs, however, should be borne by the government as it was
national revenue that fumbled around on these issues.
1025
I have advice for dealing with Bill C-72. If there was ever a
department that needed to become familiar with how to deal with
people in a professional way it is this one. We can be strict or
severe. We can be almost anything if we do it professionally,
but there are too many people out there who do not deal with the
constituents of Canada in a professional manner. The department
says it cannot do this because it deals with money. Well I say
it can.
For this young lady, this mother of two, and no doubt hundreds
of others in Canada, let us humanize this department. Let us try
to understand and ensure that the department has the staff to do
it.
I am very delighted to speak to this bill because nothing churns
me and makes me more irate than to have to counsel and try to
help a constituent when I cannot get a response from this
particular department.
I really hope all of Canada is listening to this. I want them
to get after their MP, not just on this side of the House but on
that side of the House, to humanize this department.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the point my hon.
friend makes. I suspect we have all had similar experiences, too
many of them.
He referred regularly to the department and to the officials as
not being prepared to bend or to be more humanistic and so on.
Would he not agree that the responsibility for this law that he
refers to, regarding the payment of moneys destined to assist
children, is not a bureaucrat's decision or the department's
decision but a political decision taken by the political leaders
in government? If people have concerns about the Income Tax Act
they ought not take them out on an official. They are just
carrying out the law that has been introduced by the Liberal
government, by the cabinet and by the Prime Minister.
Could he clarify this? He seems to be antagonistic about
somebody, but surely it is not the bureaucrat. It must be the
people who actually make the laws not the ones who carry them
out.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right.
The Income Tax Act is part of the government. However, the
carrying out of the act belongs to the officials. Sometimes it
does not get back to the department. I was referring to the fact
that sometimes the officials make their pronouncements and
judgments incorrectly.
In response to the hon. member's question, if the government
was really concerned about these low income people, to which I
referred, it would take a look now at the exemptions and raise
them so that the people who are struggling could get by without
having to pay nearly as much income tax. That is part of our
problem.
I read in the paper this morning and heard on the radio that
actual income has dropped. The actual income for the people who
I mentioned in my speech has dropped even more because they are
at the low end of the scale.
Yes, my colleague from the NDP, this is the government's
legislation, but those who work in that department should become
a little more familiar with each case and deal with it
accordingly.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to hear the member's comments in regard to
the responsibility of the government members and cabinet for the
Income Tax Act and for the enforcement of it.
We had the unfortunate case where Susan Theissen and her husband
had their income tax returns taken out without lawful release by
Revenue Canada, which made a terrible mess in their personal
lives.
1030
Would the member comment on whether or not it is actually
elected government members that are responsible for everything
that goes on in that department? It is their overall policies
that actually filter down to the bureaucrats. Would he comment
on whether or not it is the elected officials as opposed to
bureaucrats that are the biggest problem in Revenue Canada?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, when income tax moves in a
matter of this gravity the officials make sure that it is indeed
covered by the act some place.
I am glad the member asked that question. When an error has
been committed by the bureaucracy, the officials all the way down
the line, that error should be compensated in the same way as if
I were in business and I did my hon. colleague wrong. I would be
the first one to phone him, write him, make amends, and any
penalties I caused him should be paid.
That is what should be happening with income tax. They do make
errors occasionally. I have never seen one. I understand they
have written letters to say they are sorry. I have never seen
one. Occasionally the clients, who are citizens of Canada, get
something in return. I have not seen that either.
The attitude in Canada in relation to collecting taxes is
completely outdated. We need to follow what the IRS did in the
United States and humanize the department a bit.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about complexity and our
convoluted tax code. We started out with a tax code in a little
book about a half an inch thick. Now we are up to volumes that
stand taller than I do. We never seem to get rid of some of the
old stuff that has not worked. We have dehumanized the system.
The fairness is missing, as he has alluded to.
Could he give me some comments on the unfairness to
tradespeople: mechanics, auto body technicians, tradespeople in
other walks of life, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and so
on? They are unable to write off the cost of the tools and
equipment they bring to their jobs. In a lot of cases it is a
$15,000 to $20,000 investment of after tax dollars. It is a
prerequisite of their employment that they have to come up with
that kind of cash in after tax dollars. It is just an unfair
burden on a lot of tradespeople, some of whom are young.
It seems to fly in the face of the youth training program
initiative the government loves to talk about. That fairness
initiative is not being implemented in the tax system. Would he
care to comment on that, please?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, if I were to answer that
question we would be here all day. My hon. colleague raises a
very valid point. The other night in the House we approved a
private member's motion of the member from Kamloops related to
transit fares and taxation.
The member is quite right. Very few people in Canada today file
their own income tax. It has become so complicated that
everybody has to have it done. The member mentioned
tradespeople. They really take a beating in this regard.
Let me explain. A young fellow is hired for the first time as a
journeyman mechanic. In order to go to work the rules of that
association says he must have his own tools, not the major tools
like presses but his own tools. In order to work he must equip
himself with tools; he cannot work without them. They are very
expensive and he cannot claim them as a deduction. That is
absolutely insane. I could talk about carpenters, electricians
and so on. They have expenses that should be claimable. It is
wrong. We have slapped the faces of our tradespeople far too
long.
Let me explain. If this person were working for a corporation
and the corporation supplied the equipment it is a tax deduction,
but when the individual buys it in order to work for a firm it is
not a tax deduction.
1035
It is time we looked at fairness. It is time we looked at the
individual. It is time we had a total overhaul of the tax
system. It is becoming more complex. Every time the tax system
moves on we isolate more and more Canadians in their attempt to
even pay their taxes.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the hon.
member is aware that Bill C-72 provides some substantial tax
reduction. In fact it took 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls
and provided $16.5 billion over three years in tax relief. They
voted against it.
He talked about not helping young Canadians. The registered
education savings plan went from $2 billion to over $4 billion
since the announcement was made. It is helping Canadians save
for their children to obtain a future education.
As much as I understand the role of the opposition parties is to
criticize, I would hope the hon. member would at least point to
one or two measures with which he would agree. I know his
constituents have. I would ask him to stand and agree.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member
expects me to say and I will say it. Bracket creep probably
looked after everything.
Just very quickly on education, I say to members opposite that I
understand. I have a case on file right now of a young fellow
who received a scholarship in September 1998. He is asking me,
and I am trying to work on it, whether it is right that he has to
pay income tax on the full amount of the scholarship in the year
in which he got it. That is not right. It might be correct,
according to the books, but this young man will use that
scholarship over a period of four years and Revenue Canada says
that it wants it all claimed this year. That is wrong.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is yet another bill to add to the great pile my friend was
talking about. I happen to be six foot five inches tall and
indeed the documents go over my head. The Income Tax Act and all
the reports and documents to interpret it are totally convoluted.
Bill C-72 just adds to that convolution.
I believe it was the parliamentary secretary to the finance
minister who was trying to say earlier that we should look at
what they have done in terms of clarifying things and reducing
taxes. Why does he and his department not take a look at how
convoluted the Income Tax Act is? The officials who enforce the
Income Tax Act have the ability to make virtually any
interpretation they want of many sections. It creates all sorts
of confusion.
Before I speak specifically about Bill C-72, I offer by way of
example something that occurred not once but twice in my own
constituency which relates to what I am speaking about. I have
previously addressed this situation in the House. I hope the
parliamentary secretary will listen with great concern and
interest and take notes. We are not getting anywhere in this
situation. I know he will be able to help me break through on
behalf of my constituents.
A few years ago, as a result of some rather lopsided logic by
the NDP government in Victoria, there was a lack of wood fibre or
feedstock to the local lumber mills in my constituency. As a
consequence, a number of ranchers who were not normally in the
business of tree farming or logging on their property were
approached by lumber mills and asked if they would be interested
in selling logs on a selective harvest to the mills. Many of
them did. As a matter of fact, I think the caseload in my office
right now is approaching 25 or 30 of these ranchers who took
advantage of the situation.
1040
All these people, as my colleague who spoke previously
mentioned, had to go to tax accountants to get the issue
straightened out. What was interesting was that in most cases
the accountants had prior experience with this kind of situation.
In some instances some of the CGAs and CAs approached Revenue
Canada in Penticton and asked what was the best way to account
for that income.
None of my constituents, whose cases are in my office right now,
had any intention of walking away from their responsibility of
paying taxes. They are good, responsible Canadian citizens who
recognize that they have that responsibility and are prepared to
pay their taxes.
Their accountants advised them that the way it was handled as
far as Revenue Canada was concerned was to declare the income as
a capital gain. This was to get around the problem that
obviously there were some expenses incurred, but because they
were not in the business of normally growing the trees to be
harvested for lumber production there were not any easily
identifiable expenses that could be written off against that
income.
If this had just been one public accountancy firm, if this had
just been one CGA firm, we would have a situation where someone
obviously was mistaken in his or her interpretation. However, it
was 100% consistent on the part of all 10 firms that were
involved. As I indicated earlier, some of them actually took
advice from Revenue Canada about the issue.
What happened? Now I am getting into some interpretation, but
we had a situation where in my judgment some officials in Revenue
Canada were sitting around one day and realized that a tremendous
amount of income had been declared but if they had declared the
income as income and not as income from capital gain which gave
them a 25% advantage, they would have collected an extra $1
million in taxes.
All of a sudden these constituents were reassessed. I would
counsel my NDP colleague from Kamloops that he will have people
in his constituency who will be hit the same way. I would
counsel anyone in British Columbia and, once this has spread,
anyone involved in this kind of situation. This has been turned
back already by one appeal to one level of the tax system. Now
the government is taking it forward to a higher court of appeal.
I can think of a situation of some people who are now into their
70s. They have a very large piece of property and a residence on
the property. They received this income. They went through the
procedure as specified as good Canadian citizens. They paid
their taxes as required by Revenue Canada under the
interpretation at that time. They then paid off all their
encumbrances and disbursed funds to their families who in turn
will have used that income to pay off perhaps their mortgages or
some other debts.
In other words, what I am saying is that the money is gone. All
of a sudden, with a reassessment out of the clear blue sky this
older couple is now faced with a $72,000 tax bill. It is
absolutely bizarre that because the Income Tax Act is so
convoluted the officials in Revenue Canada were able to go after
this couple, times 25 or 30 more in my constituency.
1045
I said that there were two cases. The second case deals with
debate that has happened in the House today. The member for
Kamloops asked whether my Reform colleague thought there is the
issue here that it is the responsibility that the direction comes
from the political side. The answer to that question is partly
yes and partly no.
The yes part is that a couple of years ago the finance minister
finally woke up to what the Reform Party had been saying all
through the 1993 election, that the deficit was killing us and
that we had to cut back. The finance minister all of a sudden
woke up in 1996 and said that the government would be going after
all these so-called tax loopholes. He said there were going to
be ways to take the so-called tax loopholes, tax credits and
things of that nature away from people in middle and higher
income brackets. That was in 1996.
I have received advice that fundamentally the income tax
department has three years to go back and reassess. The income
tax department knew on the basis of what the finance minister
said that it would be rolling this back. Why did it not reassess
immediately for the 1996 year? If it was too busy, why did it
not get around to it in the 1997 year? If it was still too busy,
which I find difficult to believe due to the amount of tax that
was outstanding because it was closing this loophole, why did it
not get around to it?
The department is now getting around to it. It is filing this at
the very last minute, at the end of the approaching third year
when the statute would prevent it from going after this money.
The situation is that the finance minister says “We are closing
loopholes” and Revenue Canada says “We are going to wait”. Why
would it wait? Because of the penalties and the interest that
will be charged on the money that the department is now
reassessing as a result of the direction from the finance
minister.
I say to my friend from Kamloops, that is why he is partially
correct. Revenue Canada and the Income Tax Act are creations of
the incumbent Liberal government. On the other side of the coin,
the department itself in many cases can be legitimately accused
of being unfair and unbalanced when dealing with with law-abiding
Canadian citizens.
Unfortunately, the result is that we end up with decent
law-abiding Canadian citizens who want to pay their taxes, who
want to comply with the law and end up feeling as though they
have been shafted. What do they do with their income tax the
next year? They do everything they possibly can and sometimes
they slip into very grey areas of trying to avoid tax. They say
“I am going to hide whatever I can from those people”.
As a responsible member of parliament, I would never, ever
countenance or counsel that and I mean that in all seriousness.
But I must say as a human being I understand that kind of
reaction and emotion when people feel that it is simply unfair
and say “I am being treated unfairly so I will treat the tax
department unfairly”. It is an ever growing and an ever
encroaching problem.
Let us deal specifically with Bill C-72. I would like to read
something on page 34 of this 155 page document. It is a bit long,
but it indicates how the act is so completely twisted,
convoluted, mixed up and creates so many pockets which the tax
people in Revenue Canada have the ability to work in so many
different areas of interpretation.
1050
Clause 18(3) states:
A is the product obtained when $175 is multiplied by the number
of eligible children of the taxpayer for the year each of whom
(i) is under 7 years of age at the end of the year, or
(ii) is a person in respect of whom an amount may be deducted
under section 118.3 in computing a taxpayer's tax payable under
this Part for the year,
(i) the number of weeks in the year during which the child care
expenses were incurred and throughout which the supporting person
was
(A) a student in attendance at a designated educational
institution or a secondary school and enrolled in a program of
the institution or school of not less than 3 consecutive weeks
duration that provides that each student in the program spend not
less than 10 hours per week on courses or work in the program,
(B) a person certified by a medical doctor to be a person who
(I) was incapable of caring for children because of the person's
mental or physical infirmity and confinement throughout a period
of not less than 2 weeks in the year to bed, to a wheelchair or
as a patient in a hospital, an asylum or other similar
institution, or
(II) was in the year, and is likely to be for a long, continuous
and indefinite period, incapable of caring for children, because
of the person's mental or physical infirmity,
(C) a person confined to a prison or similar institution
throughout a period of not less than 2 weeks in the year, or
(D) a person who, because of a breakdown of the person's
marriage, was living separate and apart from the taxpayer at the
end of the year and for a period of at least 90 days that began
in the year, and—
This is just one very infinitesimal part of what we are dealing
with. It has to do with what I know the parliamentary secretary
is going to wax eloquent about, how the Liberals have been
cutting back on increasing allowances and taking, how many was
it, 400,000 people off the income tax rolls and all the rest of
it.
He and the Minister of Finance, instead of all these layers of
convolution on convolution, should simply do that which needs to
be done. Index the basic exemptions going back to the time when
the Progressive Conservative government in its wisdom decided to
deindex. Give people proper basic exemptions. They would be
able to take more than 400,000 people off the tax rolls and those
people would be the people who would be needing it the most.
The kind of gobbledegook contained in this act is the reason
people even in low income brackets make the people at H&R; Block
rich. People have to go to some kind of a tax accountant even to
fill in the most basic form and it is because of this.
Why not simply do what is right? Allow people to keep income in
their pockets, particularly people at the low end of the scale.
It has always been and will always be the position of the Reform
Party that money in the hands of the taxpayers is far more
productive than it will ever be in the hands of the Minister of
Finance or the bureaucracy this government represents.
1055
The Liberals often accuse us of coming up with simple answers.
In this case this is precisely what we are coming up with. Leave
money in the hands of Canadians. It is they who buy the running
shoes for their kids. It is they who make the decisions about
what kind of food the children will eat. It is they who make all
sorts of purchasing decisions. Leave the money in the hands of
the people, particularly the people at the low end of the income
scale. Those people of necessity circulate the money back into
the economy. Instead, the government continues to grab and grab.
It basically rips off money from the pockets of the poor.
This act is simply a layering on of convolution. This bill
makes the onion that much bigger. Even if we were to peel this
bill off the income tax onion, we would come into what was passed
in the House just last month. And if we peeled that layer off we
would be back a little farther. We would have to take a big
carving knife to this onion to get to a point where ordinary
citizens could feel confident that when they pay their taxes it
is in a fair, just and equitable way.
It is the plea of the Reform Party and of myself on behalf of my
constituents to simplify the Income Tax Act, to make it workable
and above all to make it fair.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend
and neighbour. I agree with about 96% of what he had to say.
He read from the Income Tax Act, which is always a useful thing
to do to point out how convoluted the act is and why people have
to hire tax accountants and tax lawyers to do the most simple tax
form transaction.
I know my friend is concerned about the growth of the
underground economy. Many people have decided not to carry on
business transactions above the table but to do it below the
table. This results in a significant loss of revenue to the
national treasury.
Is the reason so many people have decided to go into the
underground economy a reflection of people's loss of faith in the
fairness of our present tax system?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual time when
we have Reformers and NDPers agreeing on things. It is like the
lion and the lamb running side by side from a fire. I am the
lamb.
I could not agree with the member more. The people of Canada
clearly have lost confidence in the income tax system from the
perspective of fairness.
There is the hated GST, goods and services tax, which the Prime
Minister pledged in the 1993 campaign he would overturn. Of
course he did not keep that promise. The hated GST is probably
one of the greatest reasons for the submersion of much of
Canada's economy. The way the federal government chose to
administer the GST is convoluted.
Even if we were to have a debate about the efficacy of the GST,
that would be one thing. But surely to goodness even Liberal
members in the House would have to agree that the simple way the
provincial sales taxes are administered versus the convoluted way
the GST is administered is one of the main reasons people are
going underground.
In comparison to the Prime Minister, it is to the present
finance minister's credit that he had the graciousness to admit
he had not kept his promise on the GST.
Then when he turned around and brought in what was called the
harmonized sales tax for three out of the four provinces in
Atlantic Canada, it exacerbated the problem.
1100
Our system of taxation is grossly convoluted. I know I am
getting a little repetitious with the word convoluted. I will
have to go to a thesaurus to find a better word.
An hon. member: Complex.
Mr. Jim Abbott: No, convoluted is bigger than complex.
This government is doing absolutely nothing to resolve the issue.
I concur totally with the member from Kamloops that the people
of Canada need something better. However, I do not think we will
get it from this government.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
I want to congratulate the member for winning the Masters golf
tournament last weekend.
It seems to me that there will always be scope for improvement
in and debate about a tax system. That is the nature of the
beast.
I have sympathy for the member with respect to the convoluted
nature of our system. However, in the examples which he cited
some of the convolutions arise out of a concern to deal with
every possible case.
For example, if it has to with child care, we think of all the
possibilities or the unusual circumstances that might exist so
that people can get some tax benefit for child care. When we
start thinking about all the possibilities in Canada and all the
needs, then it gets more and more complicated.
I agree with the member about the sections he quoted. However,
at some point when we consider all of these possibilities
someone should stand back, simplify it and explain it for what it
is because the purpose is to help people get child care.
Inevitably there will be debate and complexities. However,
there are all sorts of mechanisms built in whereby taxpayers can
become involved in the process, have their case heard and
debated. Also there is great opportunity for members of
parliament to intercede. We can intercede on behalf of our
constituents. I understand that the member has been doing so. We
can speak in the House. We can speak in committee. Gradually we
can improve it.
My question to the member is a bit more general than that. I
know the tax system is designed to collect money. I know we need
that money for health programs, for transportation systems or
whatever the program. I understand that and the example which he
quoted is as good a case as I can think of. However, I also see
the tax system as a way of improving social justice and effecting
change.
For example, the child care tax credit may make the tax system
more complicated, but it is there to help the children of the
poorest families in the land. Then we have the registered
educational savings program whereby not only can families get tax
credits so their children can go on to college or university,
they can also get grants. The money they put aside is not taxed
so it can be eventually used for educational expenses. In
addition they can get a grant. That is very complicated and it
has to be put into writing.
What are the member's views on the tax system in its role as
improving Canada, as distinct from its role of simply collecting
money?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid
question and I appreciate it.
I believe what the Liberal government and Liberals in general
want to do is effect change and mould society into their concept,
their higher vision, of the way Canada should be and that they
become involved in this quite consciously. I am very pleased to
respond to that question because we do not see it that way at
all.
1105
What the Reform Party wants to do with respect to child tax
credits and things of that nature, particularly in the area of
child care, is to give true choice to people. As opposed to the
social engineering that the Liberals have quite openly become
involved in, we see the ability of Canadians to make these
choices instead of the government imposing those values through
the tax system.
On the issue of child care we would open the opportunity for
those parents who choose to have one parent at home to be
able to make that choice without being directed, as they are
presently being directed by this Liberal government, out of their
homes. Because of the tax system and the way in which the
Liberals have designed the child tax credit, the choice for many
Canadians has been made for them by these people who have this
higher purpose which they wish to impose on Canadian society.
The Reform Party sees that as being dead wrong.
The Reform Party wants to create a situation with a tax system
that will be totally neutral so that couples may choose to have
both parents out of the home working or one at home, or whatever
combination or permutation they want.
I think of one couple who are good friends of my wife and I. He
was very unhappy as a schoolteacher. She had a very responsible
position and was earning approximately the same salary. They
made the decision that he was going to become a home husband,
which was a fine choice on behalf of their family, but they made
that choice at the peril of their income because of the
convolution of this government. I think that is wrong. The
Reform Party stands for freedom of choice.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House
that the time for 20 minute speeches has come to an end. All
speeches remaining on the second reading motion of this bill will
be limited to 10 minutes without questions or comments.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a bill
to implement changes to the Income Tax Act is something we could
talk on and on about. One of the first things we should point
out to interested parties is that this bill will implement
changes to the Income Tax Act for 1998. As we all know, the
deadline to file taxes for 1998 is fast drawing to a close, it is
15 days from now, and we had all better have our filing done.
This seems to me a rather odd time to be talking about
implementing last year's changes to the Income Tax Act. That
begs the question: Are are now filing under these
implementations or are we not? Are these implementations going
to take place in the 1998 tax year or in the 1999 tax year?
Let us look at a little history about income tax. Income tax
was brought in as a temporary measure to pay the war debt of the
first world war. It was a very cunning operation because it was
deemed that only those very wealthy people who earned over $1,000
a year would be subject to this tax. Because that did not
include a lot of people, most folks said “What is the problem?
We will never be making the princely sum of $1,000 a year, so we
will not worry about it. We will let those rich people pay it”.
Of course it was only a matter of a very few years before
everyone earned enough money to be blessed with income taxes. It
is the sort of thing that creeps up on you and bites you right in
the pocketbook where you least would like to be bitten.
The need for a flat tax is greater now than it has ever been.
1110
We have heard people talk in this House today about the
underground economy and what a scourge that is on Canada. We are
assuming, at least Revenue Canada assumes, that the way to combat
this would be to bring in several more inspectors, auditors and
policemen to harass Canadians into their patriotic duty of paying
more taxes. I do not believe that is going to do the job at all.
There is one thing and one thing alone that will encourage
people to deal in the underground economy and that is a monetary
incentive. If people feel that tax rates are so high that they
have nothing to lose by dealing under the table, as my friend
from Kamloops has pointed out, then they are going to do that.
They are going to take the risk. It is simply a matter of people
judging whether or not the risk is worthwhile. The higher the
tax rates, the more easily people can decide that the risk is
very worthwhile.
I believe that a flat tax rate would do a lot of things. It
would more fairly distribute the tax burden in Canada, and we all
know we are in favour of fairness as far as taxation is
concerned. A flat tax would lower the tax rate for everybody. I
firmly believe that if we were to lower the tax rate, the rate of
compliance would increase to such a point that the government
would suddenly discover it is getting more revenue than it did
with the higher tax rate.
If Revenue Canada said it needed fewer people to harass and
police to make sure it has compliant taxpayers, that in itself
would be a net benefit to the government because it would incur
less expense by not having all of these employees on the payroll.
We all recognize that there has to be some general taxation in
Canada in order to provide the services that the federal
government has undertaken to provide to Canadians. All services
have to be paid for. However, I very much object to the method
by which the government determines that tax rate.
The tax rate seems to be set by Revenue Canada taking absolutely
every penny it can out of the Canadian people and then setting
programs to make sure that the money is spent, and then some. By
golly, in days gone by the government spent to the tune of $40
billion more than it took in.
We are now in a position where we are paying $40 billion, $45
billion or $50 billion, depending on the interest rate, in
interest payments alone for the party which has been going on
over the past many years. It is like paying for the pizza that
we ate two weeks ago.
The Reform Party thinks the government's plans and priorities
should be set and then the tax rate should be set in such a way
that revenue can be brought in to pay for the services that are
demanded by the Canadian people. That is the way we run our
households. We do not say to ourselves that we are going to
bring in every penny we can, spend all of it and run up our
Mastercard, so that when the Mastercard is full we can take out a
Visa to pay off the Mastercard. We do not spend and spend
because we love being in debt and paying interest. I do not
think we would find very many Canadians who would go along with
that kind of philosophy.
At the moment taxes are the biggest single drain on Canadian
individuals and families. Their tax obligation is more than
their house payments. It is more than their car payments. It is
likely more than their bills for food, shelter and clothing
combined. When the tax burden gets to that point we have to
realize that people are going to rebel.
People are going to rebel in various ways. They may not form
picket lines on the street and demonstrate, but they may rebel in
the way they comply with the tax laws.
1115
I am in no way condoning non-compliance with the tax laws. I
know that the government certainly has the upper hand and the
last word in those instances. It certainly is very onerous for
one to be in a delinquent position with the taxman. I would not
recommend that to anybody, but the incentive is definitely there.
We cannot help but think about the smuggling problem in central
Canada. The taxes on cigarettes were such that it was very
profitable for certain individuals to bring cigarettes across
from the United States duty free and sell them in Canada at a
huge profit. The government's answer to that was to reduce the
taxes on cigarettes. I would question the methodology in that
case.
If the government is willing to pursue or to investigate in that
particular instance, why would it not look at the possibility of
lowering the income tax rates for all Canadians? Perhaps we
would see, as I have suggested, better compliance and more actual
revenue. It does not necessarily follow that increased tax rates
result in increased revenues. I truly believe we need a system
that will emphasize tax fairness. We need a system that people
will be willing to comply with. Fairness is certainly the way to
go.
I had intended to talk about the unfairness that is involved
with the government's plan to attach itself to the public service
pension plan. Unfortunately I am going to have to save that for
the debate coming up sometime next week when that bill comes
before the House.
Suffice it to say that one of the largest and most recurring
problems we as members of parliament deal with in our
constituencies is the unfairness in the tax system, either with
the GST, with income taxes or various other forms of taxation.
We have to act as negotiators or advocates on behalf of our
constituents to try to get fairness out of the government.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-72, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act. The parliamentary secretary has asked
my hon. colleagues on this side of the House to give praise at
times when the government does something good. I can stand here
today and say that for things like the registered education
savings plan, certainly a little bit of praise has to go to the
government.
It has been my experience in life, and I happen to be over the
age of 20, that what the government giveth with one hand, it
taketh away with the other hand. As a result, the net gain any
one of us happens to get out of all these programs ends up being
zero, or as we have seen in the past, we are actually worse off.
The budgets in past years have been looked at in that way by
Canadians. They look at the taxes they are currently paying,
then they look at the program changes in the budget that increase
some taxes or decrease others. At times it looks as if the
taxpayer is actually winning. That is before it is announced
that now there are some user fees.
There are fees that farmers in particular have to pay for
government services that are legislated and mandated by
government that are for the benefit of all Canadians. Lots of
times, as I say, on the one hand the government giveth and on the
other hand it taketh away. When it taketh away, it seems it
taketh more than it giveth.
I will give an example using gross figures. In 1998-99 I think
the federal budget, the revenues in any event, took in about $130
billion. That is a pretty big figure.
Now we look one year later, and I have seen estimates that for
1999-2000 the federal government expects to take in in the
neighbourhood of $150-some billion, as high as $157 billion I
have seen.
1120
Canadians are paying much higher taxes. When I use the example
of giving and taking away, we can see that the government
continues to take away much larger revenues from Canadians which
could be better left in their hands as they would spend it and
make jobs.
As has been expressed in the House by many members, a government
should set out what its priorities are. It should set out what it
intends to do, what is absolutely necessary the government should
do that private enterprise cannot. Based on that, it should tax
to the level which is required to pay for those essential
government services.
We have a tax system that takes away from Canadians tremendous
amounts of dollars, billions of dollars, to the tune of $155
billion in the next fiscal year. Then it looks for a place to
spend that money. That is what is essentially wrong with this
taxation system. We have the cart before the horse in that area.
I would like to speak for just a couple of minutes on what these
amendments are doing for low income and poor people. People have
low incomes many times due to situations beyond their control.
Farmers and ranchers fall into that low income level. Based on
previous historical data, farmers end up paying in quarterly
payments under the Income Tax Act. At the end of the year, when
they ultimately file their tax returns about 14 months later,
they will get that money back.
The government has had the use of that money for the whole
fiscal year and the farmer has not had the use of that money. It
is the farmer's money in the first place. Finally, he gets to
put in a tax return and get some of that money back, probably in
many cases all of it back. Certainly people making $12,000 to
$16,000 get most of their tax money back, but in the meantime
that money has been used by the government. That tax rebate gains
no interest while the government has it so the taxpayer does not
benefit from that.
Contrast that with a situation where the same low income
taxpayer happens to cash in a small RRSP or they get a payment.
In the Manitoba flood situation there was an initial $5,000
payment. That all becomes taxable. When the government is owed
money by the taxpayer, immediately that is determined to be owed,
it is my understanding that 9% per day is put on the outstanding
amount.
I have not figured out the actual figures. But certainly the
principle of the idea that the government can collect interest
from the taxpayer but the taxpayer cannot collect interest from
the government flies in the face of equity and reason.
We see another problem. We are looking at amendments that could
have gone into the Income Tax Act over the course of time but did
not. The amendments that should be going into the act should
help the taxpayer and should lower the amount the government
takes in from the taxpaying Canadian public. It is always
designed so that does not happen.
I will refer to the agriculture income disaster assistance plan.
In that plan farmers have to do their accounting on an accrual
basis.
Many farmers are still operating on a cash basis, which is a form
of accounting that is good for farmers who have straightforward
incomes.
1125
When the AIDA program was put together, in order to comply with
the various complexities of the Income Tax Act, farmers who filed
under the cash basis had to convert all their records and
accounting systems over to the accrual basis just to try to get
in on the agriculture income disaster assistance program. When I
say they tried to get into it, it is not that farmers want to get
into it, it is that they have had a disaster that requires that
they try to find some way to keep their farms or ranches in
operation.
There are lots of amendments which could have gone in along with
the amendments referred to in Bill C-72. I have already mentioned
those other taxes that could be taken right out of the system,
such as the user fees for government services that benefit all
Canadians.
There is another issue which has been partially dealt with, or
there is a capacity for the Income Tax Act to deal with it. The
will of the elected members on the government side is what is in
question on this particular issue. I am referring to the family
trust provisions.
Canadians were outraged a few years ago that a well-known family
in Canada, it was reported publicly, had removed approximately
$750,000 out of the country without paying any tax whatsoever. I
suspect the figure is actually much higher.
I have not seen anything in the newspapers and I have not been
advised in any way that the Income Tax Act has been amended to
correct that system. I understand that there was already a
provision in the act where the government could go back three
years and look at those transactions and assess appropriate
penalties and taxes.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would certainly like to see the
tax paid on that $750 million. It was not $750,000. That is
peanuts to a millionaire's family. It was $750 million, almost
$1 billion.
I would like to see fairness for the poor in this country as
well as the rich. The very rich are still not paying their fair
share of taxes when we see these kinds of family trust provisions
that only the rich can take advantage of.
I praised the government for the registered education savings
plan. Certainly the government deserves credit for that. The
problem is that someone making $12,000 to $15,000 a year cannot
afford to put the basic money into those plans.
I conclude by asking that the Income Tax Act be simplified
overall and made fair for all Canadians.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as we draw to the end of this debate, it is imperative
that I speak up on behalf of my constituents who are very
concerned about the complexity of the Income Tax Act.
As we listen to the comments that have been made by the
Liberals, we as an opposition party feel it is high time that the
fundamentals be addressed. The complexity of the Income Tax Act
is such that the average person can no longer fill out the forms.
When people cannot understand something, they begin to lose
confidence in it. That is only common sense.
What has happened with the Income Tax Act is that every year it
has become more and more convoluted, more and more complex. When
people fail to understand it and cannot do what the government
refers to as simple forms, they think it is not fair and they
would like to see something done about it.
On behalf of my constituents I am pleading with the government to
look at an overhaul of the Income Tax Act.
1130
The other evening when we voted I was really torn between voting
for tax reduction, that is allowing employers to give their
employees bus passes without making it a taxable benefit, which
would have been a way to encourage less use of individualized
means of transport, or voting for a simpler tax system. That is
the choice we had: voting for a tax reduction or voting for a
simpler tax system. That is what it has come to and that is why
we need an overhaul of it.
We need both. We need tax reduction, and the government knows
it. We are losing some of our best young people who are going
south of the border or to other countries. If we are to address
the fundamentals of our economy, it is high time to look at
serious tax reduction.
As I was listening to the questions to us from the members of
the government as we were speaking on this matter, it was
abundantly obvious that the bureaucracy and the government in
Ottawa are not bothered by creating a complex, convoluted tax
system. I would like to give a couple of examples with which I
have been very familiar in the last several months.
We have had the government develop a farm compensation package
for the drop in commodity prices that farmers have experienced
because of the subsidies other countries are putting in place for
their farmers. The government came out with a program, AIDA, the
compensation package. The government said that it would be very
simple and bankable. Farmers would be able to fill out the forms
in a few moments, send them in, and would know exactly what they
would get.
The forms we have pulled off the Internet are 50 pages long. It
takes an accountant quite some time to fill it out. Farmers have
to go through all kinds of calculations and measurements, and it
is not very easy to do. If this is what the bureaucracy and the
government regard as a simple form, they had better think twice.
It is costing farmers $200, $300, $500 and up to $1,000 to fill
out the forms, and then they may not even get anything.
The same is true of income tax forms. It is very costly for
people to have somebody fill them out. It ends up being another
tax on them that they cannot avoid because they have to hire
somebody to fill out the forms.
Another thing the government has done is to go to a gun
registry. I suppose the House is wondering how a gun registry
fits in with this topic. It is another example of how complex
things have become. One has to jump through all kinds of hoops
and hurdles now to own property which one has taken for granted
for many years. It does not improve public safety. It does not
improve our lives in any way. It is another complex form that
people have to fill out.
The government defended this registry system and the licensing
system that accompanies it by saying that it is no more complex
than the Income Tax Act. Let that sink in. It is bringing in
more forms, more complex things to fill out, and is defending
them by saying they are no more complex than the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Act is not simple.
The question I have, and I think it is the key question as I
have listened to all the debate, is why has our tax system become
so complex. I listened to the defence the government has made
for this complex system. The Liberals and Liberal minded
politicians, which includes the Conservatives previously and the
NDP, want to manipulate behaviour. They want to shape society in
such a way that it will conform to their way of thinking. They
will put a tax break here and cause this kind of behaviour to
take place there by adjusting the tax system.
We saw it very clearly when it came to giving benefits to
parents. Parents who choose to stay at home and take care of
their children do not get the same tax benefits. It makes the
tax system more complex, but it is a way for the government to
manipulate behaviour. It gets parents to give up their children,
send them to day care or whatever, rather than allow them to have
equality, allow one of the parents to stay home and to do so
without being penalized by the tax system.
It is another example of how complex things have become and I
think it is because they want to manipulate behaviour.
1135
Look at all the things in the tax system that make it so
complex. At some point it can be traced back to somebody who
wanted to cause a certain kind of behaviour to take place. I
would like somebody on the other side to reply to that because I
am sure that is true.
We need to go to a very simple tax system. Some serious study
must be done on a flatter tax system. We have to look at the
province of Alberta which is doing a study now or thinking of
implementing a flat tax. The federal government should do the
same. The benefits from that would be enormous. People would
again gain control over their lives. They would be able to
direct their money.
I know the government put the question forth: “Would you like
to have a tax break if you can save for your child's university
education and so on”. Why have that? Why not just let parents
and taxpayers figure out where they want to put their money and
how they want to manage it?
We have the same problem in other areas, for example RRSPs. The
government is trying to tell us exactly how to save, who to
invest with and so on. All these things are ways to manipulate
behaviour. We have to do some serious study on how to reduce
taxes.
In my constituency farmers are grossly overtaxed. There is a
real concern that many farmers are being driven off the land
because they are too highly taxed.
I hope the government will get the message that we need some
serious tax reductions and that the tax system needs to be
overhauled and simplified. That is the message I get from my
constituents for the entire month of April, at least, and
throughout the year but it is not as intense as it is right now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1140
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I
believe that you would find consent for the following:
That the recorded division just requested on the amendment of
Mr. Ritz to the motion for second reading of C-72 be deferred
until Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
seem to be dealing with money all day today. First we had Bill
C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. My colleague just
talked about how convoluted and complex it was and about how an
amendment to the Income Tax Act was long overdue, not to add more
convoluted taxes but to try to ensure that it is simple and
Canadians understand the basis on which they are taxed.
People now have to sign tax returns and take the word of a
professional that what is there is appropriate. They really do
not understand the basis on which they are being taxed any more
because the rules are so complex.
We now have entered the electronic age. A friend in my
constituency, a tax professional who prepares corporate taxes on
computer, finds that Revenue Canada requires the taxpayer to sign
a statement saying that everything is true and correct. Yet the
tax return contains line numbers and dollar amounts and there is
no indication of what the dollar amounts are actually
representing. However a statement is still at the end that
certifying it to be true and correct. It is just a bunch of
numbers with nothing on the tax return of any kind. We have to
start thinking about the concept of Revenue Canada that says sign
our lives away even though everybody knows taxpayers do not know
what they are signing.
It will be interesting to hear what the Minister of National
Revenue would have to say about that. He should seriously look
at it. I wrote to him last week so I will be waiting with bated
breath for his response. Maybe not with bated breath because it
will take a little time.
Today we are talking about Bill C-71, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February
16, 1999. It deals with a number of things. One is the
trumpeted increase in funds to the Canada health and social
transfer. There is no mention here or in government press
releases that this is a small replacement of the money that was
taken away in a previous parliament by a Liberal government. It
states that the minister is authorized to pay $3.5 billion of
those funds into a trust fund from which they will be distributed
over a three year period beginning April 1, 1999.
The Minister of Finance has started a new concept whereby he
takes all the cash and puts it in a trust fund, a separate bank
account. Canadians not only cannot understand their tax return
but now they are overtaxed, and the overtaxed money is sitting in
bank accounts and is not even being used to provide services to
them.
The auditor general has been very critical of the government in
the past. He qualified the financial statements two years in a
row saying that this could not be done. Here is another instance
of the government collecting tax money, putting it in a bank
account and leaving it there to be distributed over a period of
time. First it was $800 million for the centre for innovation
where the Minister of Finance wrote the cheque and the money was
sitting in a bank account.
As far as I am aware it still is sitting in a bank account
providing no benefit, no research and no development for the
taxpayers.
1145
Last year it was $2.5 billion for the millennium scholarship
fund. We put up this money through our taxes and it is now
sitting in a bank account. The students are not benefiting from
it because it is not going to be distributed until after the
millennium.
This type of paying up front by the government has to stop. We
have another $3.5 billion to be paid out over a number of years
but the cash is sitting in a bank account.
After we add up $3.5 billion, $2.5 billion and $800 million, we
see that almost $7 billion is going to get spent after the
millennium. This sounds great, but it also happens to be just
before the federal election. One wonders if there is a
connection with spending this prepaid money just before the
election. The Minister of Finance has all these goodies and has
been trumpeting about how the government is benefiting Canadians
but he is bribing them with their own money.
We can then talk about the $11.5 billion that he will put into
health care. On top of that, there is the other $8 billion,
which is on top of the $3.5 billion I was just talking about,
that will be distributed over a four year period beginning April
1, 2000. It will be a year before we start to spend a penny of
that and it will be spent over four years.
This $11.5 billion, that the minister takes great pride about
putting back into health care, will be spent starting next year
and continue over the subsequent four years. If we take this
five year period at $2 billion a year, divided by 10 provinces,
we have a few peanuts. This $11.5 billion is not an awful lot.
Compared to the $20 billion that he cut out of health care, this
is a drop in the bucket in return. That is only one part of the
bill.
Another part of the bill deals with the suspension of binding
arbitration for the civil servants. We wonder the civil service
got a little bit upset at the collective bargaining process.
When we take away the right to binding arbitration is it any
wonder why the civil service gets a little upset and we have
declining moral?
We have a government that does not want to enter into good faith
bargaining. It wants to say “We are the big heavy stick. We
are the government. We will impose our solution upon you if you
are not prepared to bargain to a deal that we are prepared to
offer you”. I would suggest this is pretty one-sided.
Why are we going through this farce of union negotiations? The
government has made up its mind on how much it is going to offer.
We can talk a little bit about it but the civil servants cannot
go on strike or to binding arbitration. All we can do is talk
about it and make the whole process look good. It is a sham. In
the final analysis the government tells them to either take its
offer or lump it. How can that lead to good employee moral?
The government is also talking about changes to the pension plan
and the way we calculate the benefits. This morning the Minister
of Finance tabled a bill in the House which shows that he intends
to dip into the excess surplus accrual in the civil service
pension plan. This is going to further exacerbate the problems
of morale in the union.
Why does the government think it can help itself to all this
cash and then stand up and say what a wonderful job it is doing
in managing the finances? It is courtesy of the employees. The
government is going to help itself to the surplus in their
pension plan and the minister will say that he has done a great
job in managing the finances.
The other thing is in part 5 where we are granting some bands
the opportunity to tax fuel and tobacco.
After reading through this it seems to me that natives on the
reserves are tax exempt. They do not pay taxes on tobacco, fuel
and so on.
1150
It seems to me that we have had some debates over the years on
municipalities wanting to tax fuel and things like that because
of the high expenditure of maintaining roads. They have never
been allowed to do such things, but here we have this creeping
concept of granting more and more taxing powers to first nations.
I am a little concerned about that because the more taxing
powers the first nations have, the more they have to be
accountable for that money. First nations today call themselves
governments and want to be treated as a government, nut when it
comes to the cash, they want to be looked upon as a private
corporation and we are to keep our noses out of their finances.
I am aware of at least one band that is paying a member $1,000 a
month on a stand-by contract to remove snow. This is fine in the
wintertime but I understand this contract goes for 12 months a
year. We cannot get this information out on the table. We do
not have them being open and transparent with their money, which
they have to be.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to have an opportunity to speak to the budget. This is the
first chance that I have had to share my point of view on what
most Canadians viewed as a huge disappointment.
We all thought that the bad news was over. Stoically, Canadians
suffered through years and years of cutbacks. They were being
told they could not afford anything even though we are one of the
richest and most powerful nations in the world. They were being
told they could not afford the basic needs for a family to
survive. We were all sold that bill of goods. We were told this
over and over again until working Canadians believed it. They
really believed and accepted that there was not enough money to
go around.
For seven, eight and nine years they suffered through this era
of cutbacks, restraint and whatever buzzword the government was
using at the time. This year was surplus time. They really
thought there was a surplus. They thought they could finally get
back to where they were in the pre-cutback era. Even if they
were not moving forward, they thought they could at least get
back to where they were.
No, there was none of that. They are being told again that we
cannot afford the basic needs for a family to survive, such as a
national daycare program. How long have we been waiting for a
national daycare program? How long has it been recognized as a
necessity? To get more people into the workforce we are going to
have to provide for those basic needs.
While driving to work in the wintertime in my riding of Winnipeg
Centre, two or three times I drove by the same woman standing at
a bus stop at 6.30 a.m. on a cold winter morning. The
temperature was probably 25-below, as it often is on a winter
morning in Winnipeg. This woman was on her way to daycare, I
presume, because she had with her a toddler of about 18 months
old who was wrapped up in a parka, scarf and mitts. The child
could hardly stand because of all the layers of clothing.
I thought to myself that this woman, to her credit, probably has
to get up every morning at five to get this child wrapped up
because she is standing at a bus stop at 6.30 with her child to
go to work. This woman probably has to take the bus all the way
across town, drop the child off at daycare and then take the bus
back to get to her job. God knows what kind of work she was
doing. She looked to be about 22 years old. This really drove
home to me what an urgent need there is in this country for
adequate, decent, quality child care that is affordable and
accessible. No, there is no mention of that.
The basic needs and expectations of families was that maybe this
year the bad news was over. Finally, we are in a surplus budget
and we will start spending on some priorities that people really
care about. No, that simply was not to be.
Everybody knows that the child tax credit does not go to
families on welfare, the people who need it most. Our
illustrious premiers are clawing it back dollar for dollar.
1155
Yes, the feds are making a gesture in the right direction.
However, the program is so flawed that it is not going to wind up
in the hands of the people who need it most, the people on social
assistance. It is being clawed back. We lose dollar for dollar,
at least in our province. It is small consolation.
There are people, like that woman standing at the bus stop, who
go from the day's drudgery to the evening's desperation. That is
the whole scope of their life. They will take very little solace
or comfort in the budget that we saw today.
When I say that the government is finally in a surplus position
and could start spending on some priorities, one has to ask how
it got there. One way it got there is from the $25 billion it
looted out of the EI fund surplus, the overpayment. I will put
this into context so people will understand. The surplus in the
EI fund is $600 million, a month not a year, above and beyond
what it pays out. It is staggering. This again is on the backs
of those who can least afford it, the most vulnerable.
Unemployed Canadians are being denied benefits while this huge
surplus is burgeoning. This is how the fund has arrived at a
surplus. It is not going back. There is no trickle down. The
only trickle down in this country for working people, if it is
not water that is getting trickled on them, it is something else
that is getting trickled on them. It is no beach party to be a
working Canadian these days.
How else did the government get this money? How else did it put
itself into a surplus? It stole $25 billion from the EI fund.
Today the minister had the gall and the audacity to announce that
he is going to steal $30 billion from the surplus of the public
service pension plan. The man has more gall than Ceasar. It is
absolutely atrocious. The same piece of legislation, Bill C-78,
also jacks up the premium.
If the plan and the actuarial research was such that the
premiums needed to go up to meet the government's obligations,
why would it not take it out of the $30 billion surplus that is
already in the plan? Why would it raise premiums and still pull
out the surplus? Should it not use the surplus to increase the
benefits to these people?
Everybody thinks the public service pension plan is such a rich
gravy train. In actual fact most of the beneficiaries in the
plan are women given the nature of the public sector. The
average woman with 20 years service collecting a pension makes
$9,600 income from her public service pension plan.
If the government divvied that $30 billion up and gave it to the
people who properly own it, it would amount to $30,000 per
beneficiary. If we spread that out over our retirement years it
may be $4,000 or $5,000 a year more. That would improve the
quality of life for our retirees and our senior citizens.
I caution the minister responsible for the Treasury Board that
he is going to unleash a sleeping giant. He is going to have a
grey hair revolution, a blue rinse revolt. We do not take the
senior citizens of this country lightly. We go there at our
peril. Ask Brian Mulroney what happened to him when he tried to
de-index the pension plan. They drove him to his knees and he
had to withdraw.
The same thing is going to happen here. The momentum is already
building up. The people are already talking about today's
announcement of Bill C-78. My phone has been ringing off the
hook. They are asking me if the government can do this, if it
can take the surplus from their pension plan. Raising the
premiums and pulling $30 billion out is reprehensible. It is
going to lose. It is going to pay—
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I do believe we are talking about Bill C-71. I am sure the hon.
member will have ample opportunity to talk about other pieces of
legislation when they come to the House. I would ask him to go
back to Bill C-71, or am I to assume he is in favour of Bill C-71
since he has not said a word about it?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the parliamentary
secretary and all members know, the debate on this particular
bill has been wide ranging, but I am sure the point raised by the
parliamentary secretary has entered the consciousness of all
members present.
1200
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it may seem that I was off
topic, but if the member was actually here and listening to my
speech he would know that what I was talking about was how we got
into a surplus situation in this country and what the source of
revenue was to put us into that surplus, revenue that we should
be spending on the basic needs for families to improve their
quality of life. That is how we arrived at that. The member
would know that if he was actually in the House to listen.
I will talk about Bill C-71. I will talk about the budget for a
minute because everybody knows what a charade it is to bribe
people with their own money just before an election. It is
leading up to an election year.
First the government takes about $8 billion or $9 billion out of
the Canada health and social transfer, and then it puts $1.5
billion back and it expects thanks from everybody. We talked
about trickle down economics. We are getting trickled on again on
that issue. We are getting hosed in that respect. It is not a
trickle, it is a flood.
Nobody bought that. That is why Canadians are disappointed.
There was an opportunity to correct some of the historic
imbalances in our social fabric.
We could use the tax system for the redistribution of wealth.
It is one of the most effective tools. In fact I think the
parliamentary secretary pointed out in his speech that one of the
most effective tools we have to deal with the growing gap between
the rich and the poor is a fair taxation system. However, there
has been no effort to do that. Instead, the only real reference
to taxes has been to give millionaires an $8,000 tax break.
In this budget millionaires now get an $8,000 tax break. The
woman standing at the bus stop on the way to her minimum wage
job, who does not have adequate day care, is going to take great
consolation in that because if we have more millionaires we know
that it will trickle down sooner or later. We in the lower
classes will get our share. It is a good thing that more people
are getting fabulously rich.
The growing gap between the rich and the poor should be the
number one concern of this government because the shrinking
middle class is a serious problem. Our biggest strength in North
America is a burgeoning middle class, a consuming middle class, a
middle class that has money and coins in their jeans to buy
things. That is disappearing. We are going to have the very
rich and we are going to have the very poor, from the day's
drudgery to the evening's despair. It is a despair budget.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to rise in the House to represent the electors of Elk
Island on this important matter of budget, taxes, debt and
spending; all of the things this government just cannot seem to
get right.
I was intrigued with the member who just spoke. His remarks
certainly underline the fact that the last person considered is
the poor, long-suffering, bedraggled taxpayer who is every year
dragged to pay his taxes, which are forced from him whether he
likes it or not. The total level of taxation in this country is
so high that it is really very discouraging.
We have heard a number of different presentations. On the
weekend I was at a trade fair at Sherwood Park. I was there all
day, from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, and from 3 p.m. until 9
p.m. on Friday. There was an endless stream of people who walked
by in probably one of Alberta's, and maybe even Canada's, best
trade fairs, which is right in my riding. The people who came by
stopped to talk to their member of parliament. The overriding
issue that I heard was “When will we ever get rid of this high
level of taxation?” People are depressed by it. If the people
are depressed, there is no doubt the economy is depressed as
well.
The second issue that I hear is that there is waste and
mismanagement in the system while our health care system is
suffering. I am going to get right to Bill C-71. I know the
parliamentary secretary, with all of the other 153 Liberals
present in the House, is terribly concerned that the health care
system should be fixed.
We will soon vote on Bill C-72, which will implement certain
measures of the budget from last year, actually making law the
things that citizens are already required to do by the department
in filing their taxes this year.
That is a digression. I will return to Bill C-71, which is the
bill to implement this year's budget.
1205
One of the things that this budget and this bill does is to
authorize the payment of some $3.5 billion for last year's
budget. There is not a business in this country that could get
away with that in terms of trying to get rid of taxes. Canadian
taxpayers, individuals, small business people and large
businesses should all have the ability to average out over the
years. That system has really been eroded. We do not see the
Liberal government addressing that question, the question of
averaging over the last number of years. However, the government
does it, even though the auditor general says it is not
permitted. The government has loaded $3.5 billion from this year
on to last year's budget so that it does not have to account for
the surplus, so it does not have to give Canadian taxpayers the
tax cut which they so rightly deserve.
Eventually that money will find its way into the health care
system. I suppose if I wanted to search deeply for something to
commend this government for I would commend it for this health
care budget. Members may be surprised at that. How could I, as
a Reformer, commend the government for this?
It is like the day I was being robbed. The guy was beating me
with a stick. He went through my wallet and then he beat me up
like crazy. In the end I thanked him. He asked why I thanked
him and I told him I was grateful because he did not take the $20
that he did not find in my back pocket. That is what the
government is doing. It has taken some $21 billion out of the
health and social transfer and it is putting a little back, so we
are thanking the government for putting a little back. Of
course everybody knows it is not anywhere near what it has taken
out.
Mr. Speaker, I warn you to pay close attention because you may
want to call me on being unparliamentary. I know that I cannot
use terms like deliberately deceive. I cannot call members
liars. I cannot use any of those words.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Elk Island is absolutely correct. The member for Elk Island will
not bring in through the back door that which he knows he cannot
bring in through the front door.
Mr. Ken Epp: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I should not
have said those things.
I would like to draw a picture for the House. I was watching
not long ago a debate in the United States Congress. One of the
nice things is that when members of congress give their speeches
they can actually use charts, and they often do. Their speakers
go to the front of the chamber, they speak from the podium and
beside them they have these big graphs if they are talking about
budgets. I wish we could do that here. Having taught
mathematics and computing for 31 years, I love the ability to use
visuals, because it helps people to understand. However, we
cannot use props of any kind here. We cannot display the
Canadian flag. We cannot use any props at all. All we can do is
gesture with our hands and hopefully communicate in that way.
I will build a graph for hon. members, gesturing with my hands,
to show what the Liberal government is communicating to the
people versus what the truth is. This is how it is doing it.
When government members brought in this health care budget they
said that they should put about $2 billion a year back into the
budget. That seemed like a good number. Then somebody in the
back room said that in the last five years they had taken out $20
billion and if they put $2 billion back the Canadian people would
complain. They would say it is not good enough. Government
members had to do better.
One of the gurus in the back row at their meeting said he could
solve that by multiplying it by five. However, they did not have
that much money to put into the health care budget. According to
the guru that did not matter. They would just do it over five
years. That way they could multiply it by five and it would be
$10 billion instead of $2 billion.
1210
This budget is an annual budget. Every year the Minister of
Finance is required by law to stand in this place to declare for
Canadians the government's plan of fiscal arrangements for the
following year. To enter five years into it is very, very
dishonest. It really is. It does not communicate.
I want members to visualize a graph. On the bottom of the graph
we have 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, for a total of five
years.
In 1999 the government is increasing the payments it is making
for the health and social transfer. It is putting in $2 billion.
The graph is increased by $2 billion from what it would have been
if there were no changes.
It has a plan for the next year, which it has no business even
talking about it. It has nothing to do with this year's budget.
It is a projection for years two, three, four and five to follow.
In the next year there is no change at all, but it is still $2
billion above what it would have been if it had not changed it.
Then it is being increased by half a billion. In the next year
there is no change and in the next year there is no change.
By putting $2 billion a year into the budget for two years and
then increasing that by half a billion in the following year,
which is the plan, it adds up all of those payments for five
years and says they come to $10.5 billion.
What did the press release say? It said that this is a health
care budget, that it will put $10.5 billion into health care.
That is garbage. I cannot use that word. It is not accurate.
Can I say that? It is not accurate. It is garbage. It is a
miscommunication. It tells Canadians “We are doing this” when
in fact they are doing that. It is a deceptive way of
communicating with the Canadian people.
Part of Bill C-71 concerns the implementation of the money. The
government wants everybody to believe that it is doing so great
and that it is so wonderful. It just ain't so.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, there are
a number of issues that need to be addressed. No matter who sits
in parliament and who sits on the government side, at this time
in the history of the country it is very important that the right
things be done. It is time that the government stop to take a
look at itself and at Canada as a whole to see exactly how its
policies have affected certain regions of Canada.
I am talking about my part of Canada, about the maritime
provinces and Newfoundland. It is time that it sat down to take
a look.
There are over 100 members from Ontario, some of whom have no
interest whatsoever in what is happening in other regions of
Canada. Decisions are being made that have real negative impacts
on other regions.
I think back to the red book. I will never forget the red book
when the Liberals were running. They were saying how they were
going to abolish the GST. We all know that the GST is still
there.
They were going to abolish the GST. They came into the maritime
provinces and what did they do with the GST? It was turned into
the HST and now there are moms and dads who have to pay more
taxes on more items than ever before. A lot of those parents are
living in poverty. They cannot afford to pay taxes on the
diapers for their little ones. They did not have to before when
we had the GST, but they have to now. For all the needs of those
little children they are finding it extremely hard, they truly
are.
When I attended the public accounts meeting the auditor general
said that the government was not doing proper accounting. He did
not just say it once. He told it year after year that it had to
change what it was doing.
The government is telling us how wonderful everything is. The
hon. member who just spoke referred to health care.
He is absolutely correct. Having had a loved one who was just in
the hospital and knowing how the nurses with so many cutbacks are
working so hard, I ask myself what we are doing. The government
talks about putting the money back into health care. In the next
five years we will not have as much money put back into health
care as the Liberals took out of health care since they came to
power.
1215
Then I look at the shipbuilding industry. The government and
all of us want people to pay taxes. People want their dignity
and they want to pay taxes. The only way they can do that is
when they are working.
Just the week before last week in the city of Saint John a group
of business people came from Louisiana, U.S.A. They were looking
for people who could do shipbuilding. They said that Saint John,
New Brunswick had the most qualified people in shipbuilding
anywhere in the world. They offered 200 jobs and the men are
going to have to go.
Why are they going to have to go to the United States? Because
this government absolutely refuses to bring in a national
shipbuilding policy for us to compete around the world on
contracts. We could put 12,000 people to work in shipbuilding
from British Columbia to Newfoundland. There would be spin-off
effects for the economy in all regions of Canada. Companies
would have to produce the parts. It would put other
manufacturers back to work as well.
We are talking of over 200,000 people. They would all pay taxes.
It would make it easier for the government to have a better
budget. It would make it easier for all of us to have a better
living.
I do not know if any of my colleagues on the government side
have had little children come into their constituency office, as
I have. A little girl came to me two weeks ago with tears in her
eyes to tell me that she had to leave. I said, “Where are you
going, darling?” She said, “We have to move to the United
States because there is no work for us here. I have to leave my
nanny and my grampy and all my cousins. But that is the only
place daddy can get work”.
I do not know what has happened to us in Canada. I really do
not. I look at my colleagues and the government ministers and I
find they are not compassionate any more. We have an opportunity
to bring dignity back to the lives of Canadians but we can only
do that when the government is going to listen.
In the House this week people from my party and other parties
were talking about Newfoundland and the fishery. I do not know,
Mr. Speaker, if you have been to Newfoundland but it is a
beautiful place and the people are wonderful. To tell all of them
they have to go to the United States is hard to take.
It is time for the Liberals to sit down. It is time for them to
look at my community which has lost over 10,000 people since the
Liberals came to power. It is because of their programs. It is
because of their budgets. It is because of what they have
adopted as their policies. It has just about killed the Atlantic
region, Newfoundland and Quebec as well. I am really upset.
Quebec is a shipbuilding province. Quebec also wants to put its
people back to work. Just this past week we had the world
curling championships in Saint John. I had people from all
across the country, people from Saskatchewan, people from B.C.
coming to talk to me. They said, “Please, get someone on the
government side to listen”. This is a most serious situation.
I listen to what the government members tell me. They say that
the only jobs they have created are through free trade and NAFTA.
Where did free trade and NAFTA come from? It certainly was not
from the Liberals. No, sir. It came right from the PC party. I
have to tell those who are working that it came from those
policies, not the Liberals' policies.
1220
When it comes to shipbuilding I am begging the Prime Minister to
intercede. I am begging him to take a stand. I am begging him
to tell his Minister of Industry that it is time for him to
listen.
Something happened today in our local Telegraph Journal
that has never happened before. The premier of the province who
is a Liberal, Camille Thériault, was condemning the minister for
not meeting with the union boys who came up here. The minister
wanted to meet with them. The mayor wanted to meet with them. He
will not even talk to them. He will not even meet with them.
I do not want to be negative. I want to be positive. I am happy
to say when the government does something right.
We will continue to fight for our people. We will continue to
fight for them until we get a policy that puts them back to work
and they have their dignity and they can feed, clothe and educate
their children, but they cannot do it with the budgets and
policies brought in by this government.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly budget day here on the Hill.
Less than an hour ago we were discussing last year's budget and
the dollars that have been pre-booked into this year. It is kind
of like closing the chicken coop after the fox has already been
there. We have less than two weeks in this fiscal year as far as
Revenue Canada is concerned to implement the additions and
complications that were added to Revenue Canada from last year's
budget. People are already filling out their tax forms under
those rules and regulations and we have not even passed them in
this House yet. It kind of makes us wonder why we are here.
As to this year's budget, it is Bill C-71, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled on February 16, 1999.
However, thanks to the way this finance minister has taken to
spinning these books, we actually end up talking about money
spent last year, this year and into the future, and other money
Canadians will not see for two, three or five years.
It is too bad that while the Liberals are bragging about how
well they listen to Canadians in their across Canada tours, the
public does not seem terribly interested in keeping tabs on where
their tax dollars go. They know they go to Ottawa and then they
just disappear.
This system of prebudget and post-legislating has become so
convoluted and complex that average Canadians do not have a hope
of unravelling it before the next election. Unfortunately it may
take a slowdown in the global economy to accomplish this
unravelling and really bring out the problems, but by then we
will all be struggling to survive the past six years of so-called
Liberal prudence.
I will refer to some specifics of this myth of prudence. We all
know that in theory the finance minister is only projecting two
years into the future with each budget. The problem is that some
of his spending is still tripping out of the treasury five years
from now, the so-called health care budget.
We have seen the millennium scholarship fund from last year get
deducted from the 1998 budget as a $2.5 billion forwarded
expense. No one else in Canada can have that option. We are not
allowed to forward budget like that. It may have helped to
alleviate some of the problems on Canadian farms if they were
allowed to do that. It is not $2.5 billion in reality. It is a
series of charges handed out from the year 2000 and on that will
only go to a handful of Canadians, in the face of opposition from
Quebec and other provinces and most of the student groups we
listened to.
It is not wanted out there and it is not needed since there are
hundreds of scholarships and bursaries already out there from the
private sector and other places. Why not top these up at a charge
of $350 million per year only in the year the expense occurs? Why
do we have to forward it into more and more years and book that
$2.5 billion out of the so-called surplus? I guess no one else
can get their fingers on it that way.
It is not prudent to give away taxpayers' money against their
wishes in a way that brings disrepute on the nation's finances.
So much for listening to Canadians. Do not for once think that
financial experts from around the world are not looking over the
shoulder of this government. We see that in our stock market
rises and falls.
There have been compliments for Canada's sacrifices to get back
on a balanced budget. That strong economy and those sacrifices
belong to the Canadian taxpayer, not to this Liberal government.
It may take the credit but it did not do the job. The minister
has rightfully thanked the taxpayer for doing some of that but
not all.
There is obviously a deep-seated nervousness about where the
Liberals will go with this large gift of money that has been
handed to them. The dollar reflects this. It is positively
anemic. International organizations continue to warn us that our
productivity, that great buzzword we are hearing kicked about,
and our technological expertise are slipping badly.
1225
Canadians who require years of training at public expense head
for greener pastures because the government is too busy having a
wild spending spree and thinking ahead as to what it can spend
that found money on. The government is too busy to notice that
the money it is throwing out the window has to be generated by
its taxpaying citizens and businesses in the first place. So
much for listening to Canadians.
I would like to remind the House what Dr. Prudence prescribed
for this country in 1997. The projection for 1998-99 was for
revenues of $144 billion. The next year it was revised upward to
$151 billion, found cash. Now we are led to believe that in fact
it may exceed $156 billion; just missed the target by $12
billion, luckily to the plus side.
Those extra dollars were generated by Canadians. Where do they
end up? Back in the hands of the original owners? No, not a
chance. The Liberal government finds ways to spend it faster and
faster. When the government discovered that its so-called
prudent projections were out of whack, it does not announce a
more prudent retirement of the debt and it does not announce a
more prudent reduction in how much of taxpayers' money it will
skim off. Instead the government announces it will prudently
spend everything it has and more.
In an article in the February 24 Financial Post William
Watson directs our attention to table 3.4 on page 57 of the
budget documents. This trained and respected economist says that
before 1998 drew to a close, the government had $11.7 billion of
extra taxpayers' money it had not spent yet. Great idea. What
are we going to do with it now? Typically it lists a series of
items that magically added up to $11.7 billion and declared a
balance. Great accounting. Mr. Watson called it disgusting and
I am inclined to agree with him.
The lesson we learned from this is simple. Given money, the
Liberals will spend it for us. It would never occur to them to
let Canadians keep it in the first place. The Liberals have
another trick that they hope nobody will ever catch on to. They
have a habit of making virtue out of vice and spinning themselves
as the heroes of fiscal prudence.
Originally the government cut $21 billion out of social
transfers over the last five years. Now the government is
talking about putting $11.5 billion back into health care.
Billions. Big numbers. Let us break that down. As my esteemed
colleague from Elk Island pointed out, if we divide that amount
by the five years it covers, we end up with a lot lower number,
$2.5 billion. That hardly makes a dent. It is the same cost as
the millennium scholarship fund going back to a health care
system that is in crisis across the country.
I had a discussion with Dr. Hal Baldwin from Saskatoon a short
time ago. He is the treasurer of the Canadian Medical
Association. He said that it is not just money that was ripped
out of health care across this country, the heart and soul was
taken out as well. We have not just taken the money out, we have
taken the care out of health care.
These people are working handcuffed. The nurses association is
on strike right now in Saskatchewan. It is not just money they
are talking about. Their hands are tied when it comes to caring
for people, really caring, and putting that back into health
care.
We have a $900 million farm aid package that is supposed to
impact my province of Saskatchewan. It has had years and years
of drought situations and people with no net income for three and
four years. Do these people qualify for any of this aid? Not on
your life. There is no part in the equation for a zero, zero,
zero balance. That is unfortunate.
The minister of agriculture was asked the other day by my
colleague from Selkirk—Interlake how many applications the
department had received and how much money had actually gone out
of this $900 million. The minister talked about 11,000
applications being mailed into Saskatchewan. Well that is
notable but there are almost 60,000 farmers in Saskatchewan. We
have less than one-fifth who have actually applied because they
know they do not qualify. They have a little off farm income and
some custom work. They have some livestock.
This program really goes nowhere. It is a great PR exercise but
it is just like the whole budget. It is all puff and mirrors.
There is no substance here at all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1230
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip the division is deferred until Tuesday at the
conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-68, an act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the
debate on the Bill C-68. As the Chair will know, the bill
carries a very illustrious title, a title that conjured up images
of false hope in the past with respect to the ill-conceived
Liberal firearms registration bill.
An hon. member: You are very good at statements of the
obvious.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Statements of the obvious sometimes
escape the government.
I am pleased to take part in this debate for a number of
reasons. There is a need for information sharing about the new
bill. We have been waiting almost an eternity, 18 months, since
the bill was first announced. I would be the first to
acknowledge that the bill holds out some positive change, but
after enduring numerous media leaks the March 11 release of the
bill fell far short of much expectation that had been built up by
the Liberal government. This is really a light makeover of the
originally flawed bill and tinkers somewhat with the edges of the
original Young Offenders Act.
After testing public opinion on this controversial legislation
through these now famous media leaks and off Hill press
conferences, the justice department has finally enlightened the
House with the introduction of Bill C-68. As I mentioned, it has
a very ironic namesake.
[Translation]
The public wants to know, because this bill was supposed to
consider their opinions. In fact, the only opinions expressed
were those of the minister and the Liberal Party.
[English]
As I mentioned in my opening remarks Canadians across the
country are concerned that the new youth justice act does not
progress societal attempts at dealing with youth justice in
Canada. Many would argue that it is a regressive piece of
legislation which hearkens back to the days of the outdated
Juvenile Delinquents Act.
I am sure the Chair will recall that particular act. It took
the Liberals over a year and a half of consultation to come up
with a very old idea that a repeat youth offender involved in a
less serious offence could be tried as an adult and then
sentenced as a child. It is back to the future and back again.
The Liberals have drafted a bill that does not go far enough in
terms of protecting Canadians from increasingly violent youth
crime in our communities.
1235
Perhaps hon. members believe the Liberals have toughened up this
bill on the back end by potentially placing more violent young
offenders in adult jail and on the front end by diverting young
people from the judicial system and into community based
incentives like restorative justice programming or social
services. If this is what will happen, it begs the question how
will it be paid for with the increasing cuts that we have seen to
social services and policing services. Once again the Liberal
government is asking Canadians and those involved in the justice
system to do more with less.
The legislation also encourages formal caution by police for
young people who have been involved in less serious offences.
This is fine. I am sure many hon. members and Canadians will
recall that there was a time when a police officer played a
different role, perhaps a more respected role in the community,
and often administered this type of justice at street level.
How will we ask our police forces to take on this additional
responsibility? The government has already cut Canada's police
force budgets to the point that they are now barely able to
functions at some levels and barely able to hold up to their
current workloads. They no longer have the time to play the role
of a parent and a psychologist, coming up with a well prepared
and meaningful statement to warn a young person and consult with
the parents. Through the implementation of this act the Liberal
government is stretching police forces and police officers beyond
reasonable limits, and thus the increased workload I suggest will
be barely possible.
The sad result is that Canadian police forces and the public at
large are seeing our police forces like the RCMP trying to fight
problems such as youth crime and other complicated crime related
issues with more and more cuts.
Last year alone we saw $74.1 million or 13% of the RCMP's budget
slashed. We know there are further projected cuts for the coming
year. This type of gouging of the RCMP and other police forces
is essentially asking our police forces to deal with youth crime
in a depleted fashion.
We also know there were cuts to transfer payments that then were
passed on to the provinces and on to the municipalities, which
result in police forces at the municipal level again facing the
same serious challenges. They simply do not have the resources
to face difficult and complicated problems as they relate to
youth crime.
The stress, strain and emotional cost as a result on our
officers and law enforcement community are not calculable in this
context in terms of monetary figures. I only have to look at my
home province of Nova Scotia and one community in particular, New
Glasgow, where there are more officers off on stress leave than
ever in the history of that police force. Dedicated officers are
off work simply because they have been asked to do so much with
so little and the increased frustrations they feel as a result of
their commitment to serve the public.
Quite obviously there are spiralling and spin off problems of
asking police to do more with less. What is missing most of all
in the legislation is obvious. It is what is missing in a lot of
legislation, and that is funding.
I look at the bill tabled today by the Minister of Justice with
respect to victims rights and increasing the role and the
significant participation of victims in the justice system. Once
again I acknowledge, rightly so, that the minister has brought
forward some improvement to the system. However she missed a
wonderful opportunity to put in place a victims office which
would provide a central point where victims could go for
information and receive the needed knowledge that exists for
victims who fall prey to offenders.
It is no wonder there is a degree of cynicism on the part of the
opposition, and I suspect the public at large, as it relates to
this bill. The cynicism is perpetrated by the federal government
downloading its implementation costs to the provinces.
The Liberals are forcing provinces to abandon their own youth
justice proposals and follow the federal model by dangling a 30%
funding in their faces and threatening to take it back should
they choose to opt out. If the Liberals had allowed for proper
consultation in the first place, surely they could have come up
with a deal that all the provinces would have supported with
unanimity.
Instead the bill resembles the sum total of many regionalized
concessions that will make national enforcement of this bill
virtually impossible.
1240
There were a number of commentary articles about the bill when
it first appeared. One in particular in the Ottawa Citizen
commented on regionalized concessions by stating:
The bill provides considerable discretion on punishment,
recognizing that provinces such as Alberta and Ontario want
tougher penalties while others including Quebec traditionally
rely less heavily on jail sentences.
That accentuates the point that we are looking in national
legislation for a broad and uniform approach. Yet the bill has
built into its very context the fact that different provinces
will react differently and have the option of opting out should
they choose to do so.
It begs the question are we not supposed to be working toward
unanimity. I know certain members of the Bloc might disagree
with that statement, but surely the federal government has a
responsibility to bring forward legislation which encourages all
provinces to participate on a level playing field and a standard
that should be upheld. When it comes to justice, these justice
issues are far too important to have built-in flaws as they
pertain to jurisdiction.
By doing so we have seen the parochial fence-sitters that the
Liberals often are on issues of justice. Their new youth
criminal justice bill tried to please everyone. Yet offering
these piecemeal approaches will please no one. The public
confidence will be further undermined, further fuelling the
cynicism that exists about our justice system and about the
effectiveness of parliament.
The Liberal government did not go far enough in lowering to the
age of 14, the age at which an offender would face adult
sentences for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or
aggravated sexual assault, all very serious offences at the
highest end of the Criminal Code. The 14 year old age limit
would also be a barrier for the justice system as it tries to
seek justice against youth repeat offenders who commit other
violent offences.
Why were certain offences left out of the legislation? It seems
a glaring omission to me. These piecemeal changes are obviously
a response to an overwhelming public reaction and public pressure
to toughen up what is perceived as a very light justice system
when it comes to the treatment of young offenders.
The Liberals have given the appearance that they have toughened
the act, but I question whether these cosmetic alterations will
actually achieve that desired result. Why did the minister
refuse to act? That begs the obvious question. She refused to
act on recommendations that came from her own departmental
experts, in particular when it came to the lowering of the age of
accountability to 10 for young offenders.
There has been a misconception about this issue from the outset.
This is not somehow taking 10 or 11 year old infants and throwing
them into jail. That is not the suggestion at all. What the
Criminal Code would do in expanding the envelope of applicability
is that it would allow social services, the youth justice system
and the justice system at large to work together in making an
early intervention when required. When a young person did run
afoul of the law at the age of 10 or 11, it would give the police
the mandate that they need to make an intervention and hopefully
turn that young person around at the first possible instance.
Because the minister has chosen to ignore this opportunity
against the department's advice that will not in fact happen.
Once again we are told to rely on our existing social services,
child protection and early intervention through child welfare.
The sad reality is that the cuts to those departments in
particular have been so heavy and so damaging that they simply do
not have the resources again to act quickly in most cases.
If we were to hold 10 year olds accountable for their actions
and get them involved in the judicial process early, there would
be more programs available which would fit the government's
priority of rehabilitation at the earliest possible instance.
1245
I also have to wonder why the minister has chosen to download
this bill with such bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo and wording that is
obviously going to be picked apart by the defence bar and which
is going to be virtually impossible to enforce in some instances.
Although it may be a terrific make-work program for the bar
associations across the country, that is not exactly what
Canadians are expecting or what they were led to believe was
going to happen.
In fact, when it comes to the law enforcement community, what
most police officers have said time and time again is that they
are looking for a more streamlined justice system when it comes
to legislation. We hear this repeatedly from officers. We heard
it with regard to current offences under the Criminal Code as
they pertain to impaired driving. We heard it as they pertain to
matters covered by corrections and conditional release, in
testimony in that regard. The department has missed an
opportunity to put forward a bill which answers police concerns
over this issue.
The bill has been described in many provinces as being woefully
soft on offenders. I am quoting the Ontario Attorney General,
Charles Harnick, who on behalf of the province of Ontario
expressed his concerns and extreme disappointment.
In recent correspondence he noted the following facts. Sixteen
and 17 year olds who commit adult crimes are not automatically
tried as adults. Even for murder, aggravated sexual assault,
manslaughter or attempted murder there is no guarantee that these
youths would be sentenced as adults. Even on a third rape charge
there is no guarantee that an adult sentence would attach.
Most serious violent offences still require a prosecutor to
prove that an adult sentence is necessary. To prove that it is
necessary the onus is on the crown. Jail sentences have, in
fact, in many cases been reduced.
We know that adult sentences are subject to early release,
whereas a young person sentenced to a youth facility will serve
the full time. So there is a bit of a shell game going on when
the Liberals try to tell us that this is going to be tougher on
violent youth.
Mandatory jail time is not required for youth who are convicted
of an offence using a weapon. Again this is an opportunity to
send a strong deterrent message to those who choose to involve
weapons in the commission of an offence.
Ontario Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services,
Bob Runciman, also said this of the new bill.
What the people of Ontario have been asking for is legislation
that will better protect our children and our communities, that
will send a message to young people that they will be held
accountable for their actions and would deter youth crime.
Instead, the federal Liberal government has released a bill that
has little regard for public safety and even less regard for
providing meaningful consequences for criminal behaviour such as
sexual assault, drug trafficking and use of a weapon.
This negative commentary is not only limited to politicians.
York Regional Police Chief Julian Fantino had this to say:
Many police officers, and citizens right across Ontario, are
frustrated with the Young Offenders Act because it seems
primarily concerned with the rights of offenders.... It's
disappointing that the federal government won't take the
opportunity to right this wrong and introduce a much tougher law
to serve as an effective deterrent to youth crime.
That is a very telling commentary, particularly from an
experienced and decorated officer such as Fantino.
Deterrence is certainly a factor that has to be brought into
consideration, not only with youth crime, but with all crime.
This bill is very soft with respect to deterrence.
The youth criminal justice act's definition of a serious violent
offence is so vague that it is virtually useless. The discretion
that is there is there for a reason and, unlike my friends in the
Reform Party, I have some faith in our judiciary to offer correct
discretion on crime. However, when it comes to an issue such as
this, when it comes to deterrence, there is a real concern that
this bill does not allow judges to go the distance that they
would.
In no case is an adult sentence automatic under this new
legislation. Even in the case of first degree murder a young
person could avoid an adult sentence.
The following offences are but a few that are not presumed
serious enough to warrant adult sentences: armed robbery, sexual
assault and drug trafficking. These are not deemed to be serious
enough to carry an automatic adult sentence.
A young person can commit three serious violent offences—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be another
debate going on at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: There does appear to be another
debate, but I can certainly hear the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Of course I am enjoying his
remarks, as I am sure all hon. members are. His remarks may be
provoking the debate.
1250
Mr. Peter MacKay: I know you have the ears of a hawk in that
chair.
A young person can commit three serious violent offences with
still no guarantee of an adult sentence attaching. That is
absolutely shocking.
Repeat offenders of non-violent crimes are not assumed to
receive adult sentences. That again is built-in discretion.
There is also an omission in this bill with respect to victim
fine surcharges attaching to youth criminals when they have the
ability to pay. It begs the question: Why would we not want to
build in that level of accountability, that a young person would
have to repay the person against whom they have committed the
offence? There should be a built-in victim fine surcharge for
those types of property offences.
Considering this soft approach, the following scenario I will
put forward would be possible under this new youth criminal
justice act.
A 17 year old who robs a bank, kills a customer and is found
guilty of murder can still receive a youth lenient sentence.
Other soft approaches embodied in this legislation would include
most serious violent offences requiring proof from a prosecutor
that they should be transferred.
A young person who has committed a break and enter using a gun
is sentenced to a youth crime unless it can be shown that an
adult sentence is justified. Furthermore, sentences such as this
might involve not spending a day in jail. Sentences such as this
do not send the proper message to our communities.
Ontario is not the only province that is a little upset and
disappointed with this bill. The Manitoba justice minister, Vic
Toews, said that essentially his dissatisfaction stemmed from the
fact that there is little in the package to address the mounting
problem of young offenders under the age of 12. Mr. Toews also
berated the federal government for its lack of consultation with
the provinces.
He was also very concerned about the downloading of the cost of
the administration of this. We know that currently the federal
government is only picking up a meagre 30% of the administrative
costs of the current act and there is no commitment to picking up
further costs with respect to the administration of this act,
which will of course be even more onerous than the last.
There is ample time to debate this further and we will be
hearing from the minister at committee, which we anxiously
await. I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to my friend's remarks and certainly
there were a tremendous number of them with which I could agree.
However, it strikes me as passing strange that this piece of
legislation—which replaces the current Young Offenders Act,
which I agree with him has some tremendous deficiencies—is
legislation which the former government could have brought in
during the nine years it sat on the other side of the House.
I know my friend is one of the new breed of Conservatives, so
they say, and certainly we do not like to revisit history. I am
sure that my friend is very genuine, but I find somewhat
ingenuous the concept that he would be speaking on behalf of a
party that had the reins of power for nine years, when probably
the most grievous problems surrounding the deficient Young
Offenders Act were in place, and yet the predecessor to this
government, which was his party, which was reduced to two seats,
did not do anything about it.
What has changed? Is this the all new Conservative Party? Why
did the Progressive Conservatives not do something about it? I
know when I was being asked to run by people in my constituency I
was surprised at the time at the antipathy which existed toward
the Young Offenders Act. It was number one on the hit parade of
the people who were approaching me and telling me I had to go to
Ottawa to do something about it.
1255
I note that in spite of the fact that the Liberals have held
that side of the House since the election of 1993, it has taken
from 1993 to 1999 for the second justice minister to finally come
forward with this legislation. However, I wonder why his party
did not get around to doing it before?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question and I respect the work that he does within the
justice committee. However, I cannot help but sense the
frustration in his voice, knowing that his party will never be in
power to make such changes.
I also know, as the hon. member sits in criticism of the
previous Progressive Conservative administration, that he was
very much a supporter of that party at one time and an active
member of the Progressive Conservative Party. We are certainly
hoping that he will be back to support us. When he talks about
missed opportunities, I guess the Reform Party is living it,
while we are looking to the future and rebuilding this party. We
look forward to having an opportunity to sit on the government
side, as we have in the past. With such a long and stoic
history, the Progressive Conservative Party will be given an
opportunity to make some of the changes which we are suggesting.
I look forward to an opportunity to accomplish those things on
the government side and I hope that the hon. member will be
joining the Progressive Conservative Party soon so he can partake
in those changes.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Clearly my colleague should know that I was not an active member
of the Progressive Conservative Party. Unfortunately, at the
time I actually believed in 1984, going back that far, that the
Progressive Conservatives were going to do something. They did
nothing, except add phenomenally to Canada's debt load, thereby
crushing all of the social programs. While people were upset
about things like the Young Offenders Act, his party, in its old,
tired, traditional way, was just grinding along and not doing
anything about it.
We clearly have a situation which is kind of Tweedledum and
“Tweedledumber” between the Liberals and the Progressive
Conservatives. Is the reason that his party went from a large
majority to only two seats that his party was not listening, that
it was out of touch and that it remains out of touch?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we can all partake in a
revisionist view of what happened and what led to the demise of
this party or that party, but I would also remind the hon. member
that it is easier to teach a new dog new tricks. We in this
party are looking for new ideas, new invigoration. He suggested
that we call it the New Progressive Conservative Party. That is
not a bad idea because what we are doing is trying to learn from
mistakes of the past.
One of the biggest mistakes was made by those members of the
Reform Party who completely abandoned the party. Rather than try
to make some positive suggestions within the existing context of
what we were doing, they chose to storm out of the party like
angry children. They went off in a huff. It might take 10 or 15
years to heal.
However, we are going to work past that. We are looking at the
positive things that we can do in this party, one of which is
certainly to concentrate on positive changes to our criminal
justice system which has always been a very important feature of
the Progressive Conservative Party and will continue to be so for
years to come.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think we
are a little off the topic of Bill C-68, which in this parliament
of course is the Young Offenders Act. In the previous parliament
it was the gun control act. It seems to me rather unfortunate,
on behalf of Canadian voters, who sometimes have quite a
challenge keeping track of what is happening in this place, to
have Bill C-68 refer to two such disparate bills.
I would like to say something to the hon. member from the
Progressive Party who just spoke. I really think that instead of
arguing with each other we need to start recognizing that we
have a serious problem on that side of the House. We have
budgetary matters and things that are completely out of control,
and spin doctoring to try to communicate to Canadians something
quite different from the facts.
1300
We have a justice system which is limping along. It has been
five or six years since the Liberals took office in 1993. The
reason for this is that the previous Conservative government did
not do its job well. That is the reality. As a matter of fact,
the Reform Party and perhaps the Bloc were simply what happened
when there was a vacuum on behalf of what Canadian people really
wanted. They were not getting it from the government.
I wish we could work together and give Canadians the option they
so desperately need. We finally have the bill before us but it
is inadequate. After five years of dilly dallying in matters of
justice it is time to give Canadians what they demand, expect and
deserve.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to continue
the debate on this side of the House. I would far rather
concentrate my efforts on the Liberal government.
There is a score of examples that everyone can point to of what
one government did and another government neglected to do. I
agree we are talking about criminal justice. Particularly we are
talking about the Young Offenders Act which we all agree was not
working for Canadians. It is was not working in their best
interest. It is sad that it took six years for the government to
do something about it. I find that to be a complete abdication
of responsibility on the part of the government.
There are other examples of the current government having
recognized good policies like free trade and GST. Let us forget
about what it said before. We know what it did afterward and
those policies are still here.
We can point to good things and we can point to a lot of bad
things on the part of previous administrations. Let us go back
to Sir John A. Macdonald if we are to start blaming people for
what happened.
This is an evolutionary process. At least let us have the good
sense to try to improve upon legislation that requires
improvement or introduce new legislation when it is needed. That
is where the government has been falling down. It is running out
of ideas to borrow from the previous government.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was thinking of seeking unanimous consent to let the debate
continue on the other side of the House.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John McKay: I said “thinking of”. We on this side
of the House are witnessing certain Alice in Wonderland
experiences. The most recent evidence of bizarre experience is
that the people of Windsor—St. Clair allowed those two parties
to fight over 6% of the vote. We think the people of
Windsor—St. Clair have a certain element of wisdom in their
insight.
Speaking of Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Speaker, since you are as
erudite as anyone in the House you will recall one of the great
phrases in that book: “First the sentence, then the verdict”.
In some respects that is my reaction to the hon. member's speech.
I will direct the minds of hon. members to the meaningful
consequences the bill proposes with respect to serious and less
serious offenders and I will direct my remarks to sentencing.
Only a small number of people are involved in serious and repeat
criminal acts, particularly acts of violence, but I say with
respect that they seem to drive the agenda. It is as if those on
the other side of the House wish to set policy based on Toronto
Sun headlines.
1305
In 1997, 82% of charges laid against youth were for non-violent
crimes like theft and breach of court orders and contempt orders.
Unfortunately there are too many examples in our current youth
justice system of young people serving time for minor offences.
We incarcerate youth at a rate twice that of the United States
and ten times that of Europe, and we are soft on crime. The
figure when it comes to adults is entirely reversed. The United
States incarcerates adults at six times the rate we do.
A fundamental question for all members is whether we are safer
by incarcerating youth at a rate twice that of the United States
and ten times that of the Europeans. Are our streets safer? Is
our crime rate lower or higher? Will “toughening up” this
system of youth justice make our streets safer?
We incarcerate youth despite the fact that we knowingly run the
risk they will come out hardened criminals. It is trite but it
is true that this is where these kids learn how to be real
criminals. We incarcerate them knowing that the alternatives to
custody can frequently do a better job of ensuring that young
people learn from their mistakes.
Under the balanced approach we have taken in this new act there
is a clear distinction between serious and less serious offences.
All young people who commit offences will be held accountable
through meaningful consequences. However the new act recognizes
that taking minor offenders to court and sending them to jail is
not the best way of holding them accountable and is often
counterproductive. I would submit that is frequently lost on the
other side.
For the first time judges will be given a rationale for the act
and some sentencing guidelines. Up to now they have been without
guidelines and all over the map. Section 37 gives the purpose
and principles of the act with respect to sentencing and states:
The purpose of sentencing under section 41 is to contribute to
the protection of society by holding a young person accountable
for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have
meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his
or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The first purpose is the protection of society. The second is
to hold youth accountable. The third is the imposition of just
sanctions. The fourth is meaningful consequences. The fifth is
to promote rehabilitation and reintegration of the youth.
Subsection 37(2) states:
A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young
person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the
following principles:
That directly addresses the issue raised by the previous speaker
with respect to the “shell game”. It continues:
(b) the sentence must be similar to the sentence imposed on young
persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar
circumstances;
(c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the
offence and the degree of the responsibility of the young person
for that offence.
It goes on further to outline various other issues to be taken
into consideration in sentencing. To review, subsection 37(2)
states that the sentence cannot be greater than that of an adult,
that it must be similar to that of another young person, and that
it must be proportionate.
1310
Having said that there is now some coherence, some purpose and
some rationale for the sentencing principles in these guidelines,
I draw the attention of members to subsection 2(1) dealing with
presumptive offences or, as they have become known, the big five.
It reads:
(i)...first degree murder or second degree murder...
(ii)...attempt to commit murder,
(iii)...manslaughter,
(iv)...aggravated sexual assault—
The minister has attempted to add to the list subsection (b):
—a serious violent offence for which an adult could be sentenced
to imprisonment for more than two years committed by a young
person after the coming into force of section 61, if at the time
the young person committed the offence at least two judicial
determinations have been made under subsection 41(8), at
different proceedings, that the young person has committed a
serious violent offence.
In other words another category, the category of youth who
commit serious violent offences in a repeat pattern. I turn to
subsection 41(8) which states:
—On application of the Attorney General after a young person is
found guilty of an offence, and after giving both parties an
opportunity to be heard, the youth justice court may make a
judicial determination that the offence is a serious, violent
offence (and it may not be in the top four categories) and
endorse the information accordingly.
If that finding is made on two separate occasions, the youth
will be subject to a jeopardy that is not faced by adult
criminals. In my view the minister has addressed the subsection
of the youth population which garners the headlines in the
Toronto Sun.
Section 69 deals with presumptive offences and states:
—If a young person who is charged with an offence set out
paragraph (a) of the definition “presumptive offence” in
subsection 2(1), committed after having attained the age of
fourteen years, is found guilty of committing an included offence
for which an adult could be sentenced to imprisonment for more
than two years, other than another presumptive offence set out in
that paragraph,
We set out a presumptive offence. An individual could be less
than 14 years old and a sentence of at least two years could be
imposed. Instead of a presumption youth justice can make an
order. The scheme is coherent, rational and proportionate. It
is now time for the provinces, the judiciary and the lawyers to
step up to the plate and make the system work. The ball has
moved over to that court.
The new act provides that in general incarceration is to be
reserved for violent offenders and serious repeat offenders where
there is no reasonable alternative that would be capable of
holding the young person accountable. Some judges have indicated
that they reluctantly use custody for some offenders because of
the lack of alternatives to custody.
The act provides new sentencing options that allow the judge to
impose meaningful consequences that do not involve incarceration.
These options include an intensive support and supervision order
which will provide closer monitoring and more support than
probation to assist the young person in changing his or her
behaviour.
In addition, an attendance order will require the young person
to attend a program at specified times and on conditions set by
the judge. Also a deferred custody and supervision order will
restrict non-violent offenders and will require an offender who
would otherwise be sentenced to custody to remain in the
community subject to conditions set by the judge.
Failure to comply with the conditions can result in a young
person being sentenced to custody.
1315
These alternatives to custody are in addition to other
alternatives that will continue to be available under the act,
such as probation, restitution and community service.
In some respects the minister puts her money where her mouth is.
The new resources allocated in the 1999 budget for youth justice
are $206 million over the next three years. It will be available
to the provinces to ensure that front end alternatives and
alternatives to custody are available. In other words it is
great to set it out in legislation, but if we do not put the
resources with it, it is not terribly meaningful. This will
enable the more expensive court process and custody facilities to
be targeted for the more serious youth crimes that warrant their
use.
My submission is that this is a balanced approach. This
recognizes the concerns of Canadians to their safety. It
recognizes the reality that all youth offenders are not created
equal and that some deserve a certain kind of treatment. That
treatment will in fact result in, it is hoped, turning out useful
citizens to our society.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the input that the hon. member for
Scarborough East makes at the justice committee. I know that he
takes this matter very seriously.
I do however question some of the statistics that he cites. In
particular, he mentioned first that it was four times the U.S.
model, then two times the U.S. model. We all know that
statistics on these matters can be very, very misleading when it
comes to the human impact that a violent crime has on a person
and the faith that a person has in the justice system to respond
adequately.
I have a few questions and comments I would like to put on the
record with respect to the practical implications of some of
these changes to the act.
My own feeling is that it takes a long, long time before a judge
actually exercises the option of putting a young person in jail.
That may sound contrary to the statistics that have been cited,
but most young offenders I dealt with as a crown prosecutor had
been before the court numerous times, occasionally for violent
offences. It took several appearances before the judge even
contemplated that option of incarceration. That was built into
the intention of the act, that we treat young people differently.
But when it comes to violence, if the only option of protecting
the public at large is to remove the offender from society, so be
it. The first obligation of the justice system is to protect the
innocent.
With respect to the length of incarceration that young offenders
will receive under this act, there is a misnomer that that in
fact will result in longer sentences. That is simply not the
case. With the presumptive offences, I would ask the hon.
member, why is it that certain what I deem to be violent
offences, offences including armed robbery, offences involving
assaults and sexual assaults with weapons, are excluded from
those presumptive sections?
This concept that there is a catch-all built into the act, this
definition of serious violent offences and the fact that a judge
can then exercise his discretion, does it not make it simpler for
all to simply enunciate those in the bill the way they are in the
original presumptive section? Why would we omit some that
obviously are violent by their very nature?
My last question pertains to this concept that alternatives to
custody do not presently exist. There are numerous options
currently available to judges. Those options are being exercised
now as they have been since the inception of the Young Offenders
Act.
They are options like conditional sentencing, which is in my
opinion inappropriate for violent offences in any event, not only
existing for adults but existing for youth as well, and the hon.
member trumpets that as a good thing. Conditional sentences were
never intended to apply to violent offenders. I take great issue
with that, but I would be very interested to hear the hon.
member's comments.
As a final comment, I would also like to know how all of these
changes that put greater emphasis on rehabilitation and community
reformation, greater emphasis on alternative measures and putting
the emphasis on the community services element now to help in the
reformation of these young people, will be paid for.
1320
I am sorry, but $206 million over that period of time does not
even equal the amount that has been taken out. It certainly does
not allow these services any kind of an increase to match the
increased responsibility they are receiving by virtue of this
act.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was a
series of questions or an additional speech. Having said that,
my hon. friend's crown attorney bias is showing somewhat.
We are trying to achieve a balance on this side of the House
which reflects the need and concern about public safety. The
need and concern about public safety are something which we take
very seriously on this side of the House. That is why we have set
up these five categories.
The first four categories of murder, attempted murder, sexual
assault, et cetera are categories with which my hon. friend and I
agree. We could go on to list multitudes of various other issues
right out of the Criminal Code and my hon. friend and I could
argue about whether or not those are appropriate.
The minister has chosen for better or for worse a system which
is basically a two strikes and you are out approach. The two
strikes and you are out approach is that this may not fall within
the first four offences, but we are entering a conviction on
offence x and if the offender is back on a separate
occasion, then it will be offence y. If the offender is
back a third time, then x and y will result in the
offender doing special time under section 2(1)(b).
That is a better response to the way in which we should go about
recognizing serious youth violence, rather than simply getting
out the Criminal Code and listing everything that is there.
With respect to one of his other questions regarding the $200
million, I would like to point out first that it is dedicated
money. The second thing is that the 1999 budget put an
additional $2 billion in cash back into the CHST, the Canada
health and social transfer. That is a serious amount of money
for provinces to use presumably at their own discretion for their
justice system and their youth justice system. I would submit
that is an additional amount of money.
My own province of Ontario received another $936 million right
out of the sky which it was not anticipating. It has used it for
pre-electioneering of some kind or another.
Mr. Peter MacKay: All money out of the taxpayers'
pockets.
Mr. John McKay: All money is out of the taxpayers'
pockets. That is like saying the sky is blue, it is about that
useful an observation.
The $936 million is money the Ontario government was not
anticipating. It will be profiled into the CHST and can be used
for justice initiatives. In particular, it can be used for youth
justice initiatives. There are no strings attached to that
money.
In addition, we put a further $3.5 billion into health care.
Arguably this is a bit of a stretch on health care, but I would
submit that a number of the offenders have far deeper problems
than the criminal justice system. These kids are there for
reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that
they punched out some kid in the school yard. These kids have
some real serious problems and that money can be used there as
well.
I would submit that the response of this government is a very
strong response to the provinces and their needs to administer
their systems.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed
the intervention by my hon. colleague across the way. I always
appreciated his voice in the justice committee. It always had a
logical and sound ring to it. I do not know what if anything has
happened to change that since I left the justice committee.
I would like to ask him this brief question. This new act is
being heralded as getting tougher on violent youth crime.
This is as a result of the cry across the country from concerned
people. The government has responded to that, yet it has not
mandated that the courts must apply the tough measures.
Throughout the bill the discretion has not been left to the
legislators but to the courts. Does the member have any concern
about that?
1325
For instance, the publication of names, particularly of repeat
violent offenders, is subject to the discretion of the courts.
Attendance of the parents with their children in court is not
mandated by this legislation. It is also at the discretion the
courts.
Does my hon. colleague have any concern about the status quo
remaining because the bill is not mandating these actions? In so
many cases this procedure has been left to the discretion of the
courts.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no.
I am not a great fan of fettering judicial discretion. There
are certain points where parliament needs to give its guidelines
in terms of minimum and maximum sentences or in terms of various
other issues. In this particular instance I do not know how one
could draft a piece of legislation which says that x, y or z.
When a crown attorney is faced with a youth who has committed
one of the five offences, the crown attorney will give notice
that he or she will be seeking an adult sentence for this
particular crime. Upon conviction there will be an argument as
to whether this crime warrants the imposition of an adult
sentence. It is like Alice in Wonderland, first the sentence
then the verdict. That is that side. We go for the verdict
first then we go to the sentence.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Surrey North has clearly set out where the Reform
Party is coming on this. He said:
The youth criminal justice act is nothing more than the Young
Offenders Act with a facelift and a new name. We will be
proposing a number of amendments in the hope significant
improvements will be made to protect Canadians. It is our youth
who are affected by this legislation; it is our youth that are
most often the victims of crime by their peers. Our youth
deserve better from this government.
The question we have to answer on behalf of Canadians in this
debate is are their families safer under this renamed Young
Offenders Act, the youth criminal justice act?
Canada has been saddled with inadequate young offender
legislation for a number of years. Even the justice minister has
characterized the Young Offenders Act as seriously flawed and
easily the most unpopular piece of federal legislation.
Canadians have become more and more disenchanted and concerned
with youth crime, believing that our justice system is too soft.
Young people themselves say to me that the majority of youth
crime goes unreported. I am sure that is something which could
be reflected on by all members of the House.
After years of criticism and months of political pressure the
Liberal government has finally introduced its replacement for the
failed Young Offenders Act. The new youth criminal justice act
we are debating today repeals and replaces the Young Offenders
Act and provides principles, procedures and protections for the
prosecution of young persons under criminal and other federal
laws.
For years the Reform Party has been fighting for better youth
crime legislation. Unfortunately the Liberals' new bill falls
short of the hopes and expectations of Canadians. On the surface
it appears to be what Canadians want, but for every step forward
they have taken a couple backward.
For example, the Liberals have changed the name of the Young
Offenders Act and they have changed their sales pitch. A close
study of the new legislation reveals, as I say, that for every
step forward there is a hidden step backward.
1330
In the hope of salvaging the most unsatisfactory legislation and
making it work, I would like to draw attention to some of these
issues. The question is what is missing from the youth criminal
justice bill.
First off the youngest offenders are left out. Our opponents on
the other side like to go out of their way to place all sorts of
characterizations on me and our party for talking about
incorporating 10 and 11 years olds in young offender legislation.
They can have their characterizations.
The reality is that it is because the Liberals refuse to see the
involvement or the encapsulating of 10 and 11 year olds that
those young people at that very tender age are being drawn into
criminal activity without any way for the justice system to
involve itself. Their argument of course is to let the provinces
do it; let somebody else do it; let the youth social system take
care of it. In certain situations, that is inadequate.
Under the new legislation 10 and 11 year olds will not be held
criminally responsible for their crimes. The government is
leaving them to child welfare. How can child welfare control
violent criminals who quickly learn they are immune to punishment
under Canada's youth laws?
We are talking about only the tiniest fragment of the youngsters
of that age. The reality is that tiny fragment of youngsters can
wreak havoc on their families, on their neighbourhoods, on people
around them, and particularly on youths of their own age. We want
them brought into the system so that the system can handle them.
They can either be rehabilitated or indeed, habilitated. Often we
get mixed up between rehabilitation and habilitation. In many
instances some 10 and 11 year olds that are involved in this very
awful activity have never had the opportunity to learn what is
right and what is wrong.
A Liberal across the floor says to hang them high. That is the
kind of inane characterization I was referring to. The reality
is that by not bringing these young people into the justice
system, by not dealing with these youngsters at that age, they
are simply outside of the system. They are preyed upon by
youngsters and older teens to do their work because they are
small enough to fit into places and slide under things and do
this and that. It reminds me of Fagin and his hoards of little
youngsters in the old musical play Oliver. This kind of
do-goodism by the Liberals is leaving those people and indeed the
people around them to the vagaries of what may come.
Many serious crimes can only receive a light youth sentence.
Many serious and violent crimes must be added to the list of
presumptive offences for which adult sentences may be imposed.
The Liberals have included murder, attempted murder, manslaughter
and aggravated assault. But they do not include sexual assault.
They do not include sexual assault with a weapon. They do not
include hostage taking. They do not include aggravated assault.
They do not include kidnapping.
In British Columbia we are very conscious of the issue of home
invasions. Unfortunately some young offenders are involved in
home invasions. Home is the place of sanctity. The place where
Canadians feel comfortable is in their own homes. When their home
is invaded it is a scar for them for the rest of their lives.
The Liberals do not include that offence as being one that can be
treated as an adult offence.
1335
In order to continue the protection of society, to create a
situation of meaningful consequences, to promote rehabilitation,
habilitation and reintegration, this bill falls desperately
short. Unfortunately the maximum youth sentences remain light.
Let me be very clear. I am very proud to say that the district
municipality of Sparwood is in my constituency. There are three
people in Sparwood, although one of them has now moved to Fort
St. John after being promoted from sergeant to staff sergeant.
They are Judge Waurynchuk, lawyer Glen Purdy and the sergeant.
Between these three people we have ended up with a situation of
diversion. Property offences by youth in that municipality have
been reduced from an average of over 80 a year to only six or
seven a year. It has been through a creative way of dealing with
young offenders.
The vast majority of young people can be handled intelligently
and well by their local community with all sorts of creative ways
of driving home the seriousness of their offences and what it has
meant to the people they have offended against, even in a
property offence. These young people can be reintroduced into
society and can become functioning parts of society. I do not
say this as a matter of theory. It works. These are real
numbers.
The exciting thing is that it does not just work in small
communities like the district of Sparwood which has approximately
5,000 people. We have seen it work in larger communities, in
communities as large as Edmonton where there has been diversion.
I will say one good thing about this bill. It recognizes the
idea of diversion. Having said that, we can deal with these kinds
of offences not only in a humane way but in a way which builds
society and pulls society together.
There are still those who will not respond. There are still
those for whom there must be a system of protecting society from
them. They are by far in the minority of people who even become
involved with the police but nonetheless, this bill goes light on
them and that is wrong. It is not fair to them and it is
absolutely not fair to their peers and it certainly is not fair
to society. Even repeat and violent offenders may avoid jail
terms.
Reform supports alternative measures as I just described for
first time non-violent offenders, but we are dismayed that the
government has not excluded repeat and violent offenders from
this lesser form of punishment. We do not want violent and
repeat offenders to be serving their entire sentences in
communities. Sometimes it is simply not appropriate. When you
have to be tough, you have to be tough. Unfortunately this
government has not shown the backbone to handle that.
This bill, as a result of a lack of negotiating ability on the
part of the justice minister or whatever, has not been able to
bring a situation of establishing national standards with this
bill. As a consequence youth offences in one jurisdiction will
be handled very differently from youth offences in another
jurisdiction.
The question we ask is why are victims not protected and why are
violent offenders sheltered?
Here is the Reform position on youth crime. Serious offenders
aged 14 and 15 and all offenders 16 and over should be tried as
adults. I said serious offenders. The justice system should
maintain separate young offender facilities that emphasize
education, skills, training, discipline and community service.
The records of young offenders should be treated similarly to the
criminal records of adults. Parents of young offenders should be
held financially responsible to victims where lack of reasonable
parental control has proven to be a factor contributing to the
offence.
1340
Again this is something the Liberals love to jump on. They
choose not to understand. I think they have some intelligence so
let us try it on them for size. Let us be very clear. I will
read it to them again so that they can understand the words.
Parents of young offenders should be held financially responsible
to victims where lack of reasonable parental control has proven
to be a factor contributing to the offence.
The Liberals turn around and simplify that and ask how parents
can be financially responsible for young offenders, full stop.
It does not say that. It is where lack of control has proven to
be a factor. That is where there has to be some responsibility.
It is very clear and straightforward. The devil made me do it is
not a term that actually works in this particular case.
The government has changed the name of its legislation. It has
changed its sales pitch. Once the bill is carefully considered,
Canadians are being shortchanged. For every step forward, there
is a hidden step backward.
It may take months or years after this legislation is brought
into force before we see its problems develop. In many areas
there are provisions to satisfy Canadians, but the corresponding
loopholes and openings for provincial initiative will bring forth
criticism in individual cases. Over time Canadians will realize
this legislation will have done little to quell criticism and
outrage over our youth legislation.
I had occasion to have an extended discussion with a defence
lawyer. He was pointing out to me as a layman going through the
bill all the places where he could drive his arguments through.
We know that the courts are doing everything they can to avoid
getting into a situation of appeal. He was saying that this
legislation is convoluted, the word I used this morning when we
were talking about taxes. This legislation is so convoluted, has
so much overlap, has tried to deal with so many eventualities in
oblique ways and has done so much to spread around authority. He
showed me all the loopholes and spent about half an hour
discussing how he would argue them. This legislation has the
potential to be an absolute money maker for defence lawyers.
Canadians have been saddled with poor young offender legislation
for a number of years. The Minister of Justice has promised
legislation over a period of almost two years. We recognize she
has only been in that chair for two years, but her predecessor
was talking about young offender legislation as well. We wonder
why the minister could not have done a better job when we finally
witnessed the results of her endeavours. We will be proposing a
number of amendments in an attempt to improve this most
unsatisfactory legislation.
The government talks about a balanced approach. We have no
problem with a balanced approach but it must be done right for
Canadians and not just for our criminals. We see in this
legislation a repeat of the question I asked of the solicitor
general in question period yesterday. An example is the terrible
murder case that has just been resolved by the jury in Toronto.
Why does the government consistently lean in favour of the
criminal? Why does the government not put the protection of
society first?
Let me draw attention to clause 37(2)(d)(i) of the bill. The
first five words are “be the least restrictive sentence”. In
context it is “subject to paragraph (c), the sentence must be
the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the
purposes set out in subsection (1)”.
1345
The largest single problem in Corrections Canada today is the
phrase included in the legislation covering the incarceration of
convicted criminals: “be the least restrictive sentence”.
I do not understand why the government continuously puts the
rights of criminals and the rights of those who would become
involved in criminal activity ahead of the safety and protection
of the person and the property of law-abiding Canadian citizens.
I was just leafing through and there it was: “be the least
restrictive sentence”. Unfortunately this is their pattern. It
is to the detriment, chagrin and denigration of society in Canada
that this is the pattern of the Liberals.
In my summary I also point out that 10 and 11 year olds are
still not to be held criminally responsible for their crimes. The
government is leaving them to child welfare, but child welfare
obviously cannot control violent children who quickly learn they
are immune to punishment under Canada's youth laws. Reform does
not want to lock up 10 and 11 year olds. We want them to be put
into the system. We want them to have a chance to be
rehabilitated before they develop more serious and habitual
criminality.
The bill is a massive disappointment after the tour
parliamentarians made. An all party parliamentary committee
recommended that 10 and 11 year olds be included and they were
not included.
It is a terrible disappointment that government members, given
the opportunity to correct something that is so very wrong in
society, have come up with a flawed, badly designed bill which
will do nothing except give them a way of presenting a new sales
pitch on how they will take care of the problem.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member lamented the inclusion in section 37 of the term
“the least restrictive sentence possible”. Put in the context
of the legislation, he should go on to say the least restrictive
possible to accomplish the goals of rehabilitation, restitution
and all the proper components of sentencing.
Why is it that the member finds that objectionable? If the
courts are able to come up with a sentence that accomplishes the
proper goals of sentencing, why we would want something more than
the least restrictive? What is it the member is seeking? Is it
appeasement of the popular opinion, the misconception that Canada
is soft on crime? Is it revenge? Precisely what is it that the
member is looking for?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the phrase
which appears in the legislation that gives us the ability to
incarcerate convicted criminals. In taking a look at that phrase
in the legislation, the practice is that the officials are
directed to the whole issue of least restrictive.
I was at the Drumheller Institution last July or August. We
were looking at the fact that five criminals had walked away from
the minimum security facility. I got into a discussion with the
warden and with other people at that institution and asked why
they made the decision they made.
I do not want to characterize their input to me other than to
say I took from them that they felt compelled, because of the
term least restrictive, to move people through the system far too
quickly to areas where they were walking away from various
institutions.
1350
I am taking that phrase from the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act. I am taking a look at the experience we have had
from the use of that phrase and the way officials have responded
to that phrase. I am taking a look at it in the context of this
act. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that we will have
the same decision, that the least restrictive decision will be
made to the detriment of the safety of society, which I believe
is what Canadians are looking for.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, as I always do,
to my friend's comments. I acknowledge the fact that
approximately 25,000 young people are incarcerated in Canada each
year.
If I can quote from the hon. member's speech, he was concerned
that the handling of young offenders would differ from province
to province as a result of the legislation. That might be just
paraphrasing, but I think is a fair comment to make.
In the discussion we are having today and will probably have for
some time, it is important that we keep as much balance among
ourselves as we try to improve the legislation.
While there might be a criticism, while there might be a variety
of ways of dealing with young offenders across the country, would
the hon. member not agree there are provinces that have dealt
with young offenders more effectively than others and that by
having this flexibility it gives those provinces which have a
progressive and effective way of dealing with young offenders
more opportunity to continue in that way?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the comments of my
colleagues are well taken. There are jurisdictions from which we
can learn a lot. The province of Quebec has different societal
values than other provinces. The province of British Columbia
has done an excellent job by comparison with other provinces in
dealing with youth. I think that maintaining a degree of
flexibility is important.
My concern is that in six years the government has not taken the
opportunity to pull the attorneys general from all of the
provinces together and come up with legislation that would
reflect a better way. There is too broad a scope still involved.
I would fault the government for not having been able to get a
stronger consensus of opinion. I am concerned about the fact
that because of that we will end up, particularly in the area of
serious criminal offences, with disparate responses to those
offences on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the people of of Tobique—Mactaquac, New Brunswick, are
sick and tired of violent crimes. Since 1993 we have seen the
Liberal government downloading services to the provinces with no
resources. It seems to me the government through Bill C-68 is
expecting police forces, social services and provinces to do
more.
I have a great deal of respect for the Reform member. Does he
expect the same government to provide funding for the new Young
Offenders Act?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of
my colleague. He points out that although the government is
boasting about the fact it is putting $200 million toward this
area, I believe the justice minister said the reason she was so
long delayed in coming forward with this criminal legislation was
that she was having something of a budget debate with the finance
minister. She got her $200 million and therefore felt that she
was able to go ahead with the legislation.
I agree totally with the member on the issue that the government
has been squeezing off, squeezing off and squeezing off the
fiscal resources and the ability of the provinces to able to come
forward with any intelligent kind of program, this program being
part of it.
I am also very much aware of the constriction of resources to
the RCMP, for example. It is only through goodwill from the top
to the bottom, and I say that without any equivocation, from
Commissioner Murray to the constable on the beat, that we still
have a national police force that is actually in working order.
It is only their goodwill that is keeping our streets safe.
1355
The government continuously cuts off the resources to them. It
will continue to cut off resources to be able to do a proper
enactment of this legislation and will continue to cut off the
resources to be able to take proper care of Corrections Canada
and the National Parole Board.
In all these issues the government keeps on strangling and
handcuffing our ability to be able to come forward with proper,
correct and humane ways of dealing with criminal justice or
criminal acts in Canada.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member opposite and I wanted to say as
a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police that Bill C-68
is a very balanced and effective piece of legislation. I think
we should be very proud of what it is attempting to accomplish
and indeed will accomplish.
It is interesting to hear the member from the Reform Party and
his colleagues speak about the kinds of things that they do,
always with an extremist kind of view, fear mongering and trying
to stir up the pot. They have no monopoly on criminal justice
issues. We in the government have done the right thing with this
piece of legislation.
Why would you not spend a dollar now to save seven later for
youth rehabilitation?
The Speaker: Members should address their questions and
answers to the Chair.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member
must have wax in his ears because that is exactly what I was
saying. That is precisely what I was saying.
We want the government to spend money in the areas that will be
effective in being able to take care of criminal activities in
Canada, and indeed it is not. That is exactly what I just
finished saying.
The Speaker: It is just about 2 p.m. so we will proceed
to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
KHALSA
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
now ask my colleagues to tune in to their Punjabi translation
channel as I say:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Punjabi and provided the
following translation:]
[Translation]
The Khalsa (pure) is of the God.
The victory is of the God.
[English]
Happy 300th birthday of Khalsa, the Sikh religion. Sikhs in my
riding of Etobicoke North and Sikhs all across Canada are
celebrating the tricentennial of their religion this week with a
variety of celebrations and festivals. I look forward myself to
attending the World Sikh Organization's gala celebration this
Saturday in Etobicoke.
At this special time I would like to acknowledge the outstanding
contribution the Sikh community has made to Canada. Because
Canada is a country that celebrates and honours diversity, the
contribution that Sikh Canadians have made to Canada is well
recognized and appreciated. The social, economic and cultural
contributions made by Sikhs have strengthened the fabric of our
country. Happy Vaisakhi.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Punjabi and provided the
following translation:]
[Translation]
The Khalsa (pure) is of the God.
The victory is of the God.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not a
week goes by without grassroots aboriginals banding together to
fight for accountability.
Last week in Nova Scotia a Micmac group announced that it was
planning to take its message to every reserve in Atlantic Canada
by late summer. Its message is clear to pressure chiefs and band
councils to be more open, honest and accountable as well as to
demand copies of their band's audited financial statements. This
group has found no conflict of interest guidelines,
accountability requirements and no means to deal with corrupt
officials.
This week in the Vancouver Sun a group of aboriginal women
spoke out against the department's policy of transferring the
administration of social programs as preliminary steps to
self-government. They say it is so mismanaged and misdirected
that it threatens the democratic rights and freedoms of native
Indians. The $6.4 billion a year is simply not trickling down to
rank and file natives on and off reserve. Fraud, nepotism,
intimidation and theft are the orders of the day.
When will the minister finally listen to the grassroots? It
will not be long before the demands of accountability and the
refusal of self-government are rampant across the nation.
* * *
DENTAL HEALTH MONTH
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I am pleased to inform the House that April has been
declared Dental Health Month.
1400
One of my constituents, Dr. Raffy Chouljian, is president of the
Toronto East Dental Society and he wants us all to be more aware
of our dental health every day, not just dental health month.
I want to inform the House that the average Canadian consumes
approximately the equivalent of 40 kilograms, or 88 pounds of
sugar each year. No wonder the House gets a little bit raucous
sometimes. Sugar, as we know, is one of the main causes of
dental problems.
This past weekend in my riding of Scarborough Centre, the Albert
Campbell and Cedarbrae Libraries held book displays and had
questions answered by local dentists. In addition, the Toronto
East Dental Society has donated a number of dental patient
educational books to the Scarborough Public Library system to
help promote dental health.
I commend Dr. Chouljian and his association on their hard work
and ask that all Canadians take a moment this month to think
about their dental health.
* * *
DR. JUDITH HALL
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I signal the achievements of a distinguished Canadian medical
scientist. Dr. Judith Hall, educated at Wellesley College, the
University of Washington and Johns Hopkins, is currently head of
the Department of Pediatrics at the University of British
Columbia's children's hospital.
She combines world class expertise in pediatrics and genetics.
She has been able to develop and apply new genetic techniques to
patient care, particularly in respect to children. She has now
been named Officer of the Order of Canada for her internationally
recognized research on human congenital anomalies and children's
growth disturbances.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform leader's grand dream of a united alternative continues to
implode. Not only is it proving to be incapable of uniting the
right, but it seems to be tearing apart the old Reform Party.
Twelve Reform MPs, or 20% of the caucus, have publicly stated
that they want nothing to do with the Reform leader's latest
scheme and other Reform MPs have announced they do not plan to
run with the party in the next election. The only Reformers who
seem to like the united alternative are the ones who see it as a
means to get rid of their current leader. They are the sensible
ones.
As Susan Riley so succinctly wrote in the Ottawa Citizen
last Friday:
If the right keeps uniting this way, they're going to have to
print longer ballots on election day to accommodate all of the
emerging splinter groups, rival factions and breakaway rumps.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada often
boasts about how it is a world leader in the promotion of civil
and political rights. But last week, in one of its reports, the
United Nations Committee on Human Rights took the federal
government to task for its treatment of aboriginals.
It said that Ottawa has not given effect to the recommendations
of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples with respect to
first nations lands and resources.
Yet these are fundamental considerations in the process leading
towards first nations self-government.
The Bloc Quebecois joins with the UN in urging the federal
government to quickly and energetically implement the royal
commission's recommendations with respect to lands and
resources. It is time the Liberals stopped patting themselves
on the back and understood that, for first nations, Canada is
still a long way from being the best country in the world.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
government study released in March showed that students are among
those hardest hit by the changes to the employment insurance
program. For example, students who work part time while in school
who have no chance of collecting benefits are still forced to pay
inflated premiums.
The most shocking thing we have learned is that those
responsible for this problem are themselves students. There are
three of them.
One is the Minister of Finance, a graduate of the school of
accounting sleight of hand.
Another is the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, a
member of the school's debating society who is skilled in the art
of defending positions dictated by others.
Lastly, there is the Prime Minister, the schoolyard bully, who
sees no need for studies like the one released in March. Such
studies only get in the way of stealing the lunches of weaker
students.
* * *
[Translation]
LAW DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw to your attention that today is law day. We in Canada
are celebrating the 17th anniversary of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. The theme for law day is access to justice, a
theme I strongly support.
[English]
Public legal information and education activities have been
organized across Canada by the Canadian Bar Association involving
hundreds of lawyers. The aim is to make the law more accessible
to all Canadians and to expand their knowledge of their rights
within Canada's justice system.
I offer my encouragement and my support to the Canadian Bar
Association as well as to the many community groups here in
Ottawa and across Canada in their endeavours on Law Day.
1405
I invite all members to join me in extending best wishes to
all involved for a successful law day and especially the members
of the Canadian Bar Association who, with their president, Mr.
Barry Gorlick, are here in the gallery today.
* * *
VICTIMS RIGHTS
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
Canadians, and especially victims of crime, finally receive some
legislated form of victims rights. It is unfortunate that we
have had to wait so long for these relatively simple reforms to
our criminal law. For six years the Reform Party has been
pressuring the government.
In response to a Reform motion by the member for
Langley—Abbotsford and supported by the majority of the last
parliament, the former Minister of Justice and now Minister of
Health promised legislation would be introduced in the fall of
1996. It was not.
Last October the justice committee made 17 recommendations
toward improvements to victims rights.
Today, at long last, we have finally heard from the Minister of
Justice. Six years; why did it take so long? And, still we are only
half way there. The government still has much to do in the area
of corrections and conditional release.
On behalf of victims, I seriously question the government's
priorities in respect of victims rights.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the separatists have just released a series of
documents they call “chantiers” or works in progress. In these
new documents they hold doggedly on to their determination to
break apart our country of Canada.
Yet some time ago Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard said that the
idea of sovereignty was still at the early stages. It seems to
be time this project was shelved.
The Bloc is coming back with the same idea, the separation
of Quebec from the rest of Canada. The separatists ought to
bear in mind that Quebeckers have twice rejected that option.
* * *
[English]
SAGKEENG FIRST NATION
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba has been devastated by a supreme
court decision to take a four year old boy away from his
biological grandfather and give custody to his adopted
grandparents in Connecticut.
The grandfather did not lose custody for neglect. The court
based its decision on money. The Sagkeeng man lost custody
because he is poor and the American couple is rich.
Discrimination on the basis of money or social condition is
unacceptable to Canadians. Incredibly, this kind of
discrimination is not illegal in Canada.
Two days ago the Liberal government had a chance to make sure
that what happened in Sagkeeng would never happen again.
Shockingly, it voted down Bill S-11, a bill that would have
outlawed discrimination on the basis of social condition. Instead
of standing up for the people of Sagkeeng and aboriginal children
everywhere, the minister of Indian affairs and her parliamentary
secretary from Manitoba chose to toe the Liberal government's line.
This is yet another betrayal by the Liberal government.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the sovereignists have most decidedly understood nothing about
the choice of Quebeckers. Twice, in 1980 and in 1995, in two
referendums, Quebeckers have chosen to remain within Canada.
In the past two days the Bloc Quebecois has made public a series
of documents. No doubt in large part inspired by their new
researcher and former premier, Jacques Parizeau, they are trying
to again stir up trouble among Quebecers.
The sovereignists are willfully deaf. Instead of respecting
Quebec's determination to remain within Canada, they are trying
to perpetuate political instability by talking of separation.
* * *
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I want to
congratulate the residents of the municipality of Clare for
their generous efforts.
These people had long awaited the construction of a multi
purpose building, which would house only a curling rink and
accommodate trade exhibitions, farmers' markets, craft shows and
such.
The dream is now a reality through the work of a group of
volunteers who generously gave their time and energy to this
project. Under the leadership of Charles Surette, these people
mobilized the rest of the community and the Yarmouth HDRC and
set to work providing 2,000 hours of volunteer labour, so that
soon life will be better for the residents of Clare.
It appears that in the municipality of Clare civic pride and the
willingness to volunteer are alive and well.
* * *
1410
ROSAIRE MORIN
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Rosaire Morin,
senior editor of the magazine l'Action Nationale, died yesterday
at the age of 77, after an exceptional life of action, thought,
research and writing.
Up to the very last minute, Rosaire Morin was working for his
people, to emancipate French Canadians in his youth and to
liberate the Quebec people thereafter.
In the course of the debate preceding the selection of the
Quebec flag in 1948, he was one of the primary players in the
important event known as the States-General of French-Canada.
The flight of Quebeckers' savings was his last issue. In this
one as in all other battles, Rosaire Morin was totally
professional and committed.
I reiterate the words of the president of the national action
league “One of the great artisans of modern Quebec has just
died. He followed in the steps of the great leaders. He died
on the brink of a country he fought for so hard”.
* * *
CANADA EXPORT AWARDS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Export Award ceremony will be held in Toronto next
October.
Since the program was first instituted 16 years ago, more than
300 enterprises have entered their names.
The Canadian government is pleased to take part in this ceremony
and pay tribute to the accomplishments of Canadian enterprises
in industries as varied as food, technology, telecommunications
and transportation.
We wish all entrants the best of luck and every success. I hope
that there will be numerous representatives from Quebec among
them.
* * *
[English]
THE JUNCTION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to thank the city of Toronto, Toronto Hydro
and the West Toronto Junction team, who, in partnership with
Human Resources Development Canada, are working toward the
revival of the area in my riding known as the Junction, which at
one time was the heart of the West Toronto village.
In the largest underground project undertaken in its 88 year
history, Toronto Hydro will invest $19 million to take down hydro
poles, overhead wires and transformers and will replace them with
new street lights, underground cable and transformers. Once
completed, the West Toronto Junction team and the city of Toronto
will undertake a major streetscape improvement program. The
federal government has to date contributed $100,000 toward
rebuilding the local labour partnerships.
On April 9th, the groundbreaking ceremony took place and we are
now one step closer to the dream of restoring this neighbourhood,
making it a vibrant, healthy and prosperous place to live and
work.
I would congratulate the West Toronto Junction team, the city
of Toronto and Toronto Hydro for their initiative in reviving
this important historic neighbourhood.
* * *
BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): I rise on
behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to commemorate the
82nd anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
After three years of a bloody stalemate on the western front,
it took four divisions of Canadians, led for the first time by a
Canadian, to advance with a resounding tactical victory.
The key at Vimy was superior planning and troops with a
determination to defy the odds. After weeks of practice on a
full scale replica of the ridge, the Canadians shelled the
well-entrenched Germans for two weeks before risking a frontal
assault.
When the time came to remove the remaining Germans from
their superior position, the Canadians advanced slowly up the
ridge behind a wall of fire provided by the Canadian artillery.
After heavy fighting, the Germans were driven off the ridge at a
cost of 11,000 Canadian casualties.
To historians, Vimy Ridge is a spectacular tactical victory
studied for its own merits. For Canadians, however, it marks the
birth of our nation.
* * *
SEAFREEZ FOODS LIMITED
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my extreme
disappointment and frustration and those of the citizens of
Guysborough county with the decision of the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans for rejecting an application from Seafreez Foods
Incorporated, one that was requesting to harvest 1,000 tonnes of
shrimp off the Strait of Canso.
As astonished as I am with the minister's decision, it does not
compare to that of the 150 workers who were temporarily laid off
only hours after the federal government's decision to reject the
Seafreez application.
Seafreez Foods once employed 800 people. Now Seafreez only
employs a handful. It is due to the lack of support and
understanding that this minister and his government display
toward the fisheries in Canso, Nova Scotia. For far too long,
the fishermen of Canso have seen fish being caught only
kilometres off their peer to be trucked elsewhere by others for
processing. It is ludicrous and offensive.
The fishing industry is the lifeblood of Canso. With these
fishermen not fishing they are obviously not working, which is
precisely the problem. The lack of work in Canso today is
primarily due to the minister's illogical decision to reject
Seafreez's application for increased stocks last Friday.
Seafreez has exhausted all possible—
The Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Russia today welcomed the German peace plan offering a
24 hour halt to the NATO air strikes if Yugoslav forces would
withdraw from Kosovo. Certainly no one wants a repeat of the
tragic accident that occurred yesterday.
What specific efforts have Canada and its allies undertaken to
impress upon Milosevic the serious consequences of not accepting
the latest peace offer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are happy that there is more pressure on President
Milosevic at this time to accept the withdrawal of his army,
which will lead immediately to the stopping of the bombing.
I hope he will understand that it is in the interests of
everybody that he withdraw his troops, that they stop doing what
they are doing in Kosovo, so the bombing can stop right away. I
hope that he listens.
We were talking to a lot of people this morning. For example,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke with the Minister of
Foreign Affairs for Russia to try to advance the case. As any
other country who is part of NATO, we are trying to find a
peaceful solution to this terrible problem.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that
Canada had been involved in the development of this German peace
plan for over a week. Obviously, therefore, Canada has a role in
promoting this peace proposal.
What efforts has the Prime Minister himself undertaken to
advance the German peace proposal, including within NATO where
both the United States and the United Kingdom have expressed some
reservations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister just indicated, on the weekend
there was a meeting of G-8 senior officials in which a series of
proposals were examined. They emerged, as the member calls it,
with the German proposal.
What we are now doing is engaging in a series of discussions
among ministers and among capitals to see how we can arrive at an
agreement on those proposals. It is one thing to have proposals,
the other thing is to get agreement on them.
I had a discussion with the Russian foreign minister this
morning to determine how those proposals could be conveyed and
communicated to the Serb authorities and to determine whether in
fact they are prepared to accept them. That discussion is
ongoing and I hope we will have some positive results. In the
meantime, we will continue to work actively to secure those
results.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, surely we all agree that every effort must be made to
bring Milosevic to the peace table. But the Milosevic regime has
kept its own people in the dark, both with respect to its
ruthless policies of ethnic cleansing and with respect to the
peace initiatives that have come from NATO and the west.
What effort is being made by Canada and its allies to
communicate to the Yugoslav people, as distinct from the Yugoslav
government, the fact that there is a new peace proposal on the
table?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the great handicaps in this whole conflict is
that the media is totally controlled by state authorities in
Serbia. They do not allow any form of communication other than
the ones which they dictate. Therefore, it is very difficult to
get any independent evaluation. We are in a democracy and we
have a wide variety of opinions being expressed.
In the meantime, I think there are very active presentations
being made by Radio for Europe and by Voice of America to try to
communicate the interests of NATO in finding a peaceful solution.
We will get that information through to the Serbian people as
much as we can.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask the Minister of Finance a question about taxes.
Before I do, I simply want to say that the alleged tax relief
which he has supposedly delivered so far is clearly inadequate.
That is why 85% of Canadians are saying in a national poll today
that they want to see tax relief as the number one priority.
Instead of telling us how concerned he is about it, how much he
would like to give tax relief, when is he actually going to
deliver tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made it very clear time and time
again that we want to bring down taxes. In fact, we did bring
down taxes substantially in the last budget.
If the hon. member wants to quote polls, surely to heaven he
would like to quote the poll of 6% of Ontarians who support the
gutting of health care like the Reform Party would do.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): There we go, Mr.
Speaker. The Minister of Finance says “I want to cut taxes,
but...” He always has an excuse. “This surplus is not big
enough”. “I gave billions to big business”. “Mom wouldn't
let me”. “The dog ate my homework”. We hear lame excuse
after lame excuse.
Instead of lame excuses, when is the minister going to do
something? When is he going to give us substantial tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is, I simply repeat, that it is $16.5 billion
over the next 36 months. That is substantial tax relief.
The Reform Party is now revealing its true colours. What it
says is a lame excuse is $11.5 billion going into the health care
system. That is not an excuse; that is Canada's priority.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
reaffirming the need for NATO intervention in Kosovo in order to
protect the Kosovar population, we now know that the intensified
air strikes have resulted in innocent Kosovar victims.
Could the Prime Minister fill us in on the situation and give us
his version of yesterday's sad incident?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at the NATO briefings this morning the pilot who was
involved in this tragic incident described what happened.
He saw a number of villages being set on fire and destroyed.
They reacted to that. A convoy with military vehicles was
perceived to be responsible and they attacked it to try to stop
the destruction. Unfortunately, those military vehicles also
contained refugees.
It is a very regrettable accident and NATO authorities are
putting in place measures to make sure it does not happen again.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everyone deplores yesterday's sad incident, the horror of ethnic
cleansing and women being raped.
A ray of hope has appeared, however, with Germany's peace plan
which, we have learned today, has Russia's backing. Two
countries with which Canada has close ties, the United States
and Great Britain, are somewhat lukewarm to the plan.
Does the Prime Minister intend to intervene with his British
counterpart, the President of the United States and the Premier
of China so that they too will support this opportunity to
arrive at a peaceful solution to the conflict, and so that
Canada can present Germany's peace plan to the UN security
council?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in one hour, I will have an opportunity to meet with the Premier
of China and I intend to ask him to play a role.
It would be desirable for the United Nations to be involved, for
all countries, therefore, to be involved. Since China is on the
security council, I would like it to take part.
A few hours ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke with his
Russian counterpart. By tomorrow, or the next day, I hope to be
able to speak with Mr. Clinton and Britain's Prime Minister. I
have made arrangements to speak with them as soon as possible.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that the peace
plan proposed by Germany had been discussed by NATO member
countries this past weekend.
Never, I repeat never, either in the debate in this House or in
his responses to our questions, did the minister so much as
mention the existence of this peace plan.
Are there many other important things like this one of which we
are not aware because the government is deliberately hiding them
from us?
The Speaker: Order, please. The word “deliberately” is a bit
strong. I ask the hon. member not to use such words.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the statements made by the hon. member are false.
What I did say was that, last weekend, there was a meeting of
senior G-8 staff. A discussion was held at that time, along with
an examination of the possibility of proposing a peace
agreement. Leaders of governments, ministers of governments,
are holding discussions, but there is no specific agreement. A
group has presented some ideas.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the Americans were told by their government that the
NATO air strikes could continue until the summer, that this
could cost them between $4 and $8 billion, and that the
President is contemplating calling up several thousand members
of the Reserve, and sending over 300 more aircraft.
Can the Prime Minister go beyond mere generalities and tell us
whether he knows how many troops and aircraft will be required
of Canada, how long our participation will go on, and how much
these operations will cost Canadians and Quebeckers? The people
are entitled to know this.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at this point in time it is impossible for anyone to predict
exactly how long the operations will last. If President
Milosevic were to agree today to pull out his troops, that would
put an end to the problem. We have already said we would then be
prepared to send over peacekeeping troops.
At this point, we have 12 aircraft over there, and 6 more have
been requested. We have not yet made any decision, but we are
going to play the role that is appropriate for us in these
operations.
I do not know if it is going to go on until June, July or
August. I think such predictions are impossible, and I do not
want to create either false hopes or false concerns. I want to
stick to today's reality.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs recognized that Canadians
and people around the world want to see a diplomatic solution to
the crisis in Kosovo. Like us, the minister saw hope of
achieving that goal in the German peace plan. Unfortunately
Germany's proposal has stalled.
Is Canada now willing to press for a diplomatic solution by
presenting a uniting for peace resolution to the UN security
council?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong. I do not think
anything has stalled. I think the proposal has now been made
public. As I said, there is a series of discussions going on.
The Prime Minister indicated his engagement with leaders of other
governments. I am engaged in discussions with my counterparts.
We also have discussed this with the Secretary General of the
United Nations, and the five basic principles he put forward are
encompassed in this plan.
As I said to the hon. member's leader yesterday, let us give
this particular proposition a chance to work. Let us give it
a chance to see where it goes and then we will determine what the
next course will be. We are actively engaged to see if we can
find a solution.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
truly surprised. The casualties of war are mounting. There is
evidence that this peace plan has stalled. Yesterday the foreign
affairs minister did not discard the idea of a uniting for peace
resolution. He said he was ready to consider this option, but he
wanted the German plan to be explored first.
Now that we know endorsement for this plan is limited, will
Canada go to the security council, use the uniting for peace
resolution and propose an emergency session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member gets his
assessment. My sense of it is that there is a very active
interest in trying to see how we can gain agreement. That is the
essential ploy. There is no point in getting a resolution from
the United Nations, whether it is the security council or the
general assembly, if there is not agreement by the parties to the
dispute to abide by it. We are trying to get that agreement.
The essential diplomatic task is to get the Yugoslav government,
Milosevic, to agree to withdraw his troops, to stop persecuting
his people and to find some international force to make sure that
implementation can be properly monitored. That is the issue. Get
the agreement.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of National Defence answered yes to
specific training. Our troops in Edmonton, the Princess Pats and
the LSH, are training for ground operations and peacekeeping. A
force of one infantry battle group, one recce squadron and one
helicopter squadron was confirmed by the Liberal government
leader in the Senate. The Kosovo observers training in Kingston
were told by the J-3 of an option of 2,000 soldiers.
After three confirmations, will the minister admit that this is
now fact?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to give up.
I clearly pointed out yesterday that what he is relating to is a
classroom discussion, not the development of policy. That is
developed at National Defence Headquarters and ultimately here in
the House of Commons.
The training that goes on and the training he referred to
yesterday in terms of the United States is something that has
been planned for a long period of time. It is part of our
ongoing training, our inter-operability with the United States
forces, to keep combat capable. The only troops that we have
been talking about in terms of Kosovo have been for peacekeeping
purposes.
1430
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government is not showing that it is very serious in
defeating Milosevic if diplomacy does not work.
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm the following
facts? Some 40 to 50 officers in Kingston were briefed by J-3
operations staff in charge of planning Canada's deployment to
Kosovo. On the ground out of class exercises were carried out
with a 2,000 force scenario. Is it now the intention of the
minister also to deploy more CF-18s?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to more CF-18s, we have the
matter under active consideration. I expect to be able to say
something about that shortly.
With respect to our plans in terms of forces on the ground, our
plans are only relevant to a peacekeeping force. If there is
anything else, as the Prime Minister has said, as I have said and
as others have said on many occasions, then of course there would
be full consultation with the House.
* * *
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister for taxes has no clue how much his high tax policies
are punishing Canadians.
A 61 year old single woman who earned under $12,000 last year
recently sent me her 1998 tax form. The finance minister forced
her to pay $661.03 in federal taxes. That ought to be a crime.
Why is it the minister's policy to force a 61 year old woman who
is living well below the poverty line to pay any tax at all? Why
would that be?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unseemly to see the crocodile tears of the Reform
Party members when they talk about poverty. They never talk about
poverty and it is not part of their agenda.
The basic issue is that we want to cut taxes as much as anybody.
In fact we have cut taxes substantially for that person.
The member has a supplementary question and she could tell us.
Three quarters of our spending was on health care and education.
Would she not do that? We spent money on equalization. Would
she not do that? We spent money on medical research. Would she
not do that? If her questions are to have any credibility, she
should stand up and say what she would cut.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we would cut is taxes. And I do not think the minister can
talk about crocodile tears.
The minister knows that in his latest budget this woman would
save a paltry $60. The tax experts have confirmed that and they
are no rivals. She would still have to pay over $600 in her
taxes this coming year. That is shameful. This same woman also
had to pay $9.77 in the federal individual surtax when she made
less than 12,000 bucks.
I would like the minister to get up and give a supplementary
answer. Why does he force the working poor to keep paying so
much money to him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the issue at all. The issue is the fact
that that woman will be able to go to a hospital and get decent
health care which she would not get if she followed the Reform
agenda. That woman will get decent medical research for breast
cancer which she would not get if she listened to the Reform
Party. And that woman's daughter will get decent prenatal
nutrition. There will be children's programs which they would
not get if they listened to the Reform Party.
The Reform Party wants to cut taxes. It wants to cut taxes on
the backs of the poor and low income people. That is its agenda
and we will never follow it.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the plan
proposed by Germany and approved by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary
General, would be acceptable as a solution to all the members of
this House and may in fact be the key to the end of the conflict
in Kosovo, should Canada not show some leadership?
Would this not be a fine time to be the first country whose
House of Commons adopts the peace plan? Should Canada not seize
this opportunity before it?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I spoke this morning with Kofi Annan on the peace
proposal. Our discussions included the importance of a
negotiating process.
1435
There is no agreement at the moment. A group has put forward
ideas. It is very important to develop a negotiating process.
It is still too early to ask the House of Commons to express its
view. When agreement has been reached, I would like an
expression of support from the House of Commons, but at the same
time—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, am I right in
understanding the minister to say that the government would be
ready, once an agreement has been reached, something committed
and of substance, to put it to a vote in the House so members
may decide on it?
If that is the case, it is an interesting proposal and we would
ask the minister to reiterate it.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, we
are always prepared and interested to bring to parliament for its
consideration important initiatives that we must take
internationally. At the same time we are saying that we must
carefully examine this question of a vote because it begins to
provide serious limits on the fundamental issue of cabinet
government. We are very interested in having the full Commons
take note of these initiatives and express its point of view.
Those were my words.
* * *
[Translation]
TAXATION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 85% of Canadians
and 80% of Quebeckers say that tax cuts should be a priority.
They say that taxes are eroding their quality of life and
hurting the economy, the dollar and the national standard of
living.
Is the Minister of Finance so cut off from reality that he does
not see the serious consequences of his heavy taxes on
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said, and I will say again, that we want to lower taxes and
that we have lowered them substantially, by $16.5 billion over
36 months.
That is not the question. The question is this: Is the member,
who is his party's health critic, saying that he does not
approve of our decision to earmark $11.5 billion in federal
transfers for health? Is he saying that he is not in favour of
our investments in medical research and development? Is he now
going back on everything he has said in the last two or three
weeks?
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me tell
you what I was against. I was against the $21.4 billion this
government took out of medicare in the previous five years and
this little driblet, this $11.5 billion it is putting back. It is
two to one, two dollars out and one dollar back in. That is not
a very good record as far as I am concerned. How can the finance
minister stand up and possibly justify that record? It is awful.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member was against that, then why is it that
after we put $11.5 billion into the transfers to the provinces
the hon. member stood up and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We heard the question. We will hear
the answer.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the question is, if the
hon. member objected to the $3.5 billion which his party was
going to cut in transfers, why did he not stand up and say so? If
the hon. member objected to reductions in transfers when his
party was going to cut $16 billion out of transfers to the
provinces for health care, why did he not stand up in this House
and say so?
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, NATO said it
wanted to preserve the territorial integrity of Albania and
Macedonia at all costs. Now Serb troops have moved into Albania
and there has been mortar fire on the border with Macedonia for
several days.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Can the
minister tell us what NATO intends to do following its
undertaking to protect Albania's borders?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there have been reported incidents
of incursion across the borders. It has not constituted a major
intervention. It has been an attempt in terms of the conflict
between the UCK and Serbian forces themselves.
1440
NATO ministers and NATO itself have made a very clear statement.
We will not in any way accept any interference or any
transgression across those borders. We guarantee the safety and
security of Macedonia and Albania.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bombing
area is one travelled through by many refugees, and numerous
NGOs are working there as well.
Since Doctors without Borders and NGO workers are at risk, does
the minister still think that deploying troops is hypothetical,
as he said yesterday?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to send ground troops
at this point in time. The only plan is in terms of a peace
implementation force.
With respect to the air campaign, every effort is made to hit
military targets. That is our objective. That is our effort.
Every effort is also made to avoid civilian casualties.
Unfortunately, there have been incidents, but every effort is
being made to double the attempts to prevent that kind of thing
from happening.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Kamloops
Indian band has just enacted a labour code that denies unions the
right to strike or collect union dues on the reserve. This move
effectively bans unions on the Kamloops Indian reserve and it
flies in the face of the Canada Labour Code and denies basic
rights and freedoms to band members.
Does the minister agree that the Kamloops Indian band's new
labour code is an attack on the charter rights of band members to
participate in trade unions?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can advise the House and the hon. member that we have received
the petition from the Kamloops band for this particular amendment
to the Canada Labour Code. We have deemed that it is out of
order and we have given that notice to the chief and council of
the Kamloops band. We consider the matter closed.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to note that in the case of the Kamloops Indian band
the government deems the matter to be out of order, but we find
that the Nisga'a treaty will also give the Nisga'a government the
absolute power to ban trade unions from their territory for all
time.
Why do the minister and the government agree to grant
self-government powers to the Nisga'a government that deny
Nisga'a people the right to belong to a trade union?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is again confusing two different pieces of
legislation. He does not understand Bill C-49 or the Nisga'a
legislation.
The hon. member knows this. His party and leader should know
this. In the treaty that was signed, there are specific
provisions which provide for the application of the charter of
rights and freedoms as to all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the NATO
supreme commander confirmed that the U.S. had been asked for 300
more aircraft, and the allies for about 50 more, which would
raise the total number of planes involved in the conflict to
more than 1,000.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell us what exactly is the
supplementary effort NATO is requesting from Canada, and what
role those planes would play in intensifying the air strikes in
Yugoslavia?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a general request issued by the
supreme allied commander in Europe to the NATO countries. We are
actively looking at the matter. I hope to have something to say
about this shortly.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We know the minister has said that the NATO air campaign is
necessary to bring maximum pressure to bear on Milosevic to
negotiate. Will the minister inform the House of what other
actions Canada is taking to highlight the human rights and
humanitarian concerns in the region?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with the hon. member that it is
very important to bring the maximum pressure against the
perpetrators of the violence that is going on in Kosovo.
I want to inform the hon. member and the House that Canada
co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights
Commission which condemned the ethnic cleansing, which demanded
an immediate cessation of the persecution of Kosovars, and which
asked the international community to support the work of the
international criminal tribunal.
I am pleased to say that resolution passed with 44 votes for,
one against and six abstentions. It shows the mobilization of
support we can get against this kind of violence.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister of agriculture talked about
mailing out application forms when I asked him how much money
farmers had received from disaster assistance.
Farmers do not want the minister to talk about sending out forms.
They need the minister to send out some help.
1445
Can the minister tell the House how much money he has sent out
to producers to date?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an example of
what the government is doing as the applications come in is that
Ontario, which has returned 1,000 applications, is receiving a
payout of about $25,000 per farmer. The farmers on Prince Edward
Island have submitted about one-fifth of their application forms
at a payout rate of $38,000.
As soon as the applications come in the government will expedite
the payout.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to talk a bit about western Canadian
farmers. How many application forms have come in from them?
The application forms were not even available on the Internet
until March. They never started mailing them out until two weeks
ago, so how could the forms be back here? How much money has
gone out to western Canadian farmers?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a very
peculiar question from a party that does not want to pay out any
money to farmers.
The minister said yesterday that 11,000 application had been
sent out. As soon as they are sent in, they will be processed
and the money will be sent to the farmers.
* * *
KOSOVO
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Council of Churches met today with the Prime Minister to
urge a diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis. Let me read
from its letter:
Canada needs to take advantage of its hard-won position on the
security council, calling on it to perform a central overseeing
role in the diplomatic and humanitarian response to the crisis.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why will
Canada not lead the call to move for a diplomatic solution at the
UN?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that the Prime Minister
did have a very important meeting with the leaders of a number of
major Canadian churches this morning for well over an hour.
It was one of those particularly important exchanges because of
the morality and the sense of urgency the churches brought. I
can also say that I think they understood as well that Canada is
actively engaged in trying to stop as much as it can through NATO
the persecution, the violation, the harassment and the
deportation of hundreds of thousands of Kosovars. That in itself
is a very important moral stand to take.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Vatican, churches throughout Europe and churches in Russia have
appealed to NATO, to the Serbs and to the Albanian Kosovars to
stop the military action and to engage in dialogue immediately.
Now, as we have heard, they are joined by the Canadian Council of
Churches.
To advance this diplomatic dialogue, is Canada prepared to
pursue a uniting for peace resolution at the United Nations? Will
Canada do that?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the good intentions of members of the
New Democratic Party. They keep coming back to the uniting for
peace resolution. I keep coming back to the point that there is
active diplomatic initiatives under way.
I had discussions this morning with the secretary general who
put up a five point program last week, which has now been
reflected in the G-8 meetings in the proposition put forward by
the German government.
The secretary general himself is actively working to secure
agreement on those five points. If the secretary general is
interested in that proposal, I think the New Democratic Party may
restrain itself on its uniting for peace resolution until we see
how that works out.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
asked the Minister of Industry numerous times to meet and work
with officials from the Canadian shipbuilding industry and
repeatedly he has refused, citing that we now have a national
shipbuilding policy that is competitive.
If this is correct, why have we lost over 6,500 jobs already and
are about to lose 2,000 more before the end of this fall.
Will the minister agree that the shipbuilding industry is in
crisis in Canada? Will he please sit down with the shipbuilding
industry and talk about a new shipbuilding policy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
did so about a month ago.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday and the day before the union was in town from Saint
John, New Brunswick.
1450
We had 4,000 men working at our shipyard. We are now down to
200. He refused to meet with them. The Liberal premier of the
province of New Brunswick came out today condemning the minister
because he would not meet with those people.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the Prime Minister to
please instruct his minister to sit down and draft a new
shipbuilding policy.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am always happy to sit down when I have the
opportunity.
I say to the hon. member that although she continues to deny it,
we have enhanced the shipbuilding policy that had been put
forward by her party when it was in power by increasing the
amount of support given by the Export Development Corporation.
I am prepared to work with the industry. The fact is when their
party was in government it was incapable of coming up with a
better policy.
* * *
[Translation]
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
What are the government's intentions with respect to endangered
species? In particular, can she tell us when she intends to act
in order to protect endangered species throughout Canada?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very
reasonable question. The government is very concerned about
protecting species at risk. We have laws today like the Canadian
Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Act and the Fisheries Act which
do protect species, but much more needs to be done.
I have been consulting with all stakeholders and provinces
across the country for a year and a half. I will be bringing in
a strategy to protect, together with the stakeholders, all
species at risk, animals and plants. It will be law. It will be
policy and program in partnership, which is very important to
protect species at risk.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health said yesterday that any Y2K failures in
hospitals were not his problem. The Toronto East General
Hospital needs $5.2 million to become Y2K compliant and keep
patient care running on January 1, 2000. That is his
responsibility.
How can the minister say “it is not my problem” when 35% of
health care facilities are not Y2K ready? How can he deny his
responsibility?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should bear in mind that hospitals are
responsible for their own administration and provinces are
responsible for the hospitals.
A few months ago we increased transfers to the provinces for
health by $11.5 billion. The provinces undertook to use all that
money for health. I suggest it is now up to the provinces to
ensure that the hospitals see to their responsibility to become
Y2K compliant. It must be done.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in response to a question from us yesterday, the Minister of
National Defence confirmed that 600 soldiers would be dispatched
to Macedonia to take part in a peacekeeping mission, but the
timing of that deployment was not specified.
This morning, we learned that 20,000 more Kosovar refugees are
expected in Macedonia this very day.
Would this new influx of refugees be the signal the Minister of
Defence appeared to be waiting for before sending this
contingent of 600 soldiers to Macedonia?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are some 20,000 NATO troops between
Albania and Macedonia that are there as a vanguard group for a
peace implementation force. It is a very substantial number of
troops. It is also a substantial number of troops to help look
after the refugees, and that is what they are doing.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Today one Liberal senator described the AIDA program as a
disaster and the application forms as a mad dog's breakfast.
Another Liberal senator, former Minister of Agriculture Whelan,
said the farm income situation on the prairies was worse than
anything he had ever heard.
Spring seeding is approaching and farmers are in dire straits.
The AIDA program is indeed a disaster.
What are the minister and his officials doing to correct this
bureaucratic nightmare and to actually put some money into the
pockets of prairie farmers fast?
1455
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the
member, I think the farmers of Saskatchewan know the difference
between an application form and a booklet.
The application form is five to twelve pages long. It can be
filled out from the income tax forms or from the NISA forms. It
is a very simple operation. As soon as they fill them out and
send them in we will process the applications and return the
money to them.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
exploding seal population is a nightmare for many rural
communities in Newfoundland. The seal population is some six
million and growing rapidly. It poses a direct threat to the
re-establishment of a viable cod fishery. It makes no sense to
tie up boats to allow the fragile cod stocks to rebuild if we do
not protect cod from all the other hazards including seals.
Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not agree that the cod
stocks need to be protected from a growing seal menace which is
rapidly wiping out a way of life in rural Newfoundland?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the cod crisis came about because the
member's party was in power for 10 years and succeeded year after
year in ignoring scientific advice and setting the total
allowable catch well above what was recommended.
Now they want to ruin another industry in Newfoundland, sealing,
and they are going about it the right way. May I suggest to the
hon. member that he read what the president of the sealers
association said before the parliamentary committee this very
day.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. Last week he
announced that he accepted all 53 recommendations of the Standing
Committee on Health in its report on natural health products.
Many Canadians rely on alternative medicine. Could the minister
please inform the House of his plan to ensure safety, access and
choice for consumers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when it comes to natural health products, homeopathic remedies
and traditional Chinese medicines, what Canadians want is access
and freedom of choice. At the same time they want to know that
those products are safe, are of high quality, and are advertised
and labelled with truthfulness.
That is why I am so grateful to the committee on health and its
53 recommendations. The government has accepted all of them
because we believe that they provide the path to achieve those
very goals.
We will appoint an executive director of natural health
products. That person will understand natural health products
and homeopathic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government and the minister know that they are in the process of
abandoning grassroots Nisga'a people by destroying their right to
belong to a trade union, a right which all other Canadians enjoy.
The parliamentary secretary should know that once the Nisga'a
treaty is ratified this denial of basic rights can never be
corrected because the treaty expressly states that Nisga'a laws
will prevail over federal and provincial laws in the case of a
conflict.
How could the government possibly defend this kind of agreement
or this kind of treaty that denies people their basic rights?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thought I had answered the question previously. I will say it
once again to the member and I will say it slowly.
If the member would read the treaty he would find a specific
provision that says that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms applies to all Canadians and all the Nisga'a people.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
refugees continue to flee Kosovo and pour into the neighbouring
countries by the tens of thousands.
The spokesperson for the High Commissioner for Refugees has
estimated that 20,000 people from the Urosevac region could
cross the Macedonian border in the next few hours.
Is Canada continuing preparations to take in Kosovar refugees,
should it ever be asked to do so, so we may be ready for any
eventuality?
1500
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are still on alert and
we are ready to respond immediately to a request from the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of two distinguished Canadians. I
will call their names and I would like them both to remain
standing as we receive them here in the House of Commons.
The first is Mr. Gordon Pinsent who was promoted to the rank of
Companion within the Order of Canada, and the second is Dr. Mimi
Belmonte who was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada.
Welcome to your House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the official opposition I ask the government House
leader what the business of the House is for the remainder of
this week and for next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill
C-68, the youth justice legislation. Tomorrow we shall consider
third reading of Bill C-27, the fisheries bill. I do not propose
to call any other bill tomorrow.
Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday we shall consider
the bill introduced earlier today, namely, Bill C-79 respecting
victims of crime. When that is completed we shall return to Bill
C-68 and, time permitting, we will begin debate on Bill C-69
respecting criminal records. In any case, we would continue on
Wednesday with the items I have just mentioned if some of them
have not been completed.
In order to help members make plans, perhaps I could indicate
our intentions for the latter part of next week as well, hoping
that the House will recognize that it is still preliminary, given
that I am giving notice a bit more in advance than usual.
We would propose next Thursday to begin debate on the public
service superannuation bill introduced earlier this day, Bill
C-78. On Friday of next week we plan to deal with Bill C-64
respecting expositions and/or Bill C-48 respecting marine
conservation areas.
* * *
1505
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and
means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act.
I am also tabling legislative proposals, explanatory notes,
draft regulations and a backgrounder on the new framework for the
taxation of wines, spirits and tobacco products.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of this motion.
* * *
THE LATE EDMUND TOBIN ASSELIN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride and sadness in this august
Chamber to pay tribute to a man who was a great Canadian, a
fellow Quebecer, and a former member of parliament for the riding
of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in the city of Montreal.
Edmund Tobin Asselin, known as Eddy Asselin to many, represented
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in the House of Commons in the early to
mid-sixties. He died of a stroke at the age of 78 on Wednesday,
March 24, 1999.
The dashing MP, businessman and lawyer had politics in his
blood. His father, Joseph Omer Asselin, was the chairman of
Montreal's executive committee. His mother, Beatrice, started
the Canadian Prisoners of War Relatives' Association after her 20
year old son, Edmund, was captured during World War II.
Upon his returning home after being liberated by the allies from
a German prisoner of war camp, the young flight lieutenant humbly
called his mother the only hero in their family for creating a
way for families to keep in touch with war prisoners.
Also, his younger brother Patrick represented an eastern
townships seat which had formerly been held for 30 years by their
maternal grandfather, E. W. Tobin.
Mr. Asselin's daughter, Nicole Asselin, said:
He was more than a politician. He was a man with a very big
heart. He was charismatic and charming, and had a joie de vivre,
a love of life and of food and of people. He loved to take care
of people. He wasn't a receiver. He liked to give.
Eddy Asselin cut his political teeth at Montreal's city council
in the 1950s. In 1962, after 12 years as a Montreal city
councillor, Asselin handily won his NDG seat and headed to Ottawa
to become part of the Pearson government, along with another
first time Montreal MP named John Turner. He was easily
re-elected in the election of 1963.
However, Eddy Asselin's career as an MP was destined not to last
as long as many of his colleagues. He spent his few years on
Parliament Hill tackling the problems facing growing urban areas,
such as his own riding, but chose not to seek re-election in
1966.
After leaving political life Eddy Asselin finished his law
degree at the age of 40 and set up his own law practice. He was
eventually appointed to the bench as a municipal court judge.
In his younger years he was a star football player at Loyola
College. He continued to promote and support amateur athletic
associations throughout his lifetime.
Eddy Asselin is survived by three daughters, three sons and his
fourth wife, Carmelle. The funeral service, manifesting the
celebration of his life, took place on Saturday, March 27, 1999,
at the Armstrong Funeral Home in Dollard des Ormeaux.
[Translation]
I am really honoured to speak on behalf of all the residents of
my riding, especially those in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, to say how
much we will miss Eddy Asselin and how proud we are of the way
he represented our riding. We also want to say, as his daughter
put it, that he was a great Canadian and a great Quebecer.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada and Her Majesty's
Official Opposition, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Edmund Tobin
Asselin who represented the Montreal riding of
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in the House during the early 1960s.
He was elected in 1962. He was part of the Pearson government.
He did not seek re-election in 1966.
He was a Montreal municipal councillor for 12 years before
successfully entering federal politics.
1510
Edmund's brother Patrick was also elected as an MP in 1962 to
represent the eastern townships seat held by their grandfather
for 30 years.
Edmund's mother was also active in civic life and started the
Canadian Prisoners of War Relatives' Association. Edmund was a
prisoner of war during World War II.
It is said that he had politics in his blood. He came from a
family that did not shy away from civic duties.
His survivors can take pride in his accomplishments and those of
other family members who have played civic roles.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues to pay tribute to a former member of the House, Mr.
Edmund Tobin Asselin, who died at the age of 78 on March 24.
Born in Bromptonville in 1920, Mr. Asselin studied at Loyola
College and the University of Montreal. In 1924, during the
second world war, he became an aviator and was taken prisoner
of war. On his return he became a businessman.
His political career began in 1950 when he became a city
councilor in Montreal where he remained until 1962.
That same year he was elected member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, a
riding he represented until 1965. On his return to private
life he practised law and served as a judge on the municipal
court of Montreal.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself, I
offer my condolences to his family and friends.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I
rise today to pay tribute to Edmund Asselin. I am sure that all
those who knew him were saddened when they heard the news on
Wednesday of his passing.
Mr. Asselin was no ordinary individual. Those who knew him, and
I had occasion to meet him a couple of times in the city of
Montreal, knew him to be a very dynamic and dashing individual.
I think those are good words to describe him.
I never heard anybody call him Mr. Asselin. He was always known
as Eddy. He went about his business in a way which demonstrated
a true love for life and a very generous heart for his friends
and acquaintances, and certainly his family.
He was a dynamic city councillor in the city of Montreal for 12
years and then he came to Ottawa in 1962. He left a few years
later, obtained a law degree and eventually set up his own
practice. He was also called later to be a judge.
He will be missed by all who knew him. He leaves a great blank
in the city of Montreal and in Canada. He will be truly missed
by his friends and his family.
Today our hearts, our prayers and our condolences go out to his
sons, his daughters and his wife Carmelle.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Progressive Conservative Party I extend condolences to the
family of Mr. Asselin, former Liberal member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in Montreal.
It goes without saying that all members of our party and the
entire Progressive Conservative family are in full agreement
with everything said about Mr. Asselin by those who spoke before
me.
Before it was my turn to pay tribute to the man everyone called
Mr. Eddy, I listened to the comments about his big heart. I
think this was an important part of his personality. He was a
bon vivant who fitted in well everywhere he went. I am told he
was forever receiving invitations to one event or another.
As a young man, he fought in World War II. That must have taken
exceptional courage.
I was struck by a number of things about him, one of them being
that he was elected three times to city council.
A few minutes ago someone said that he was close to the people
and greatly enjoyed working with those he represented.
1515
There is no way—and I am sure members will agree with me on this
point—that one is elected three times to city council without
being very close to the grassroots. Mr. Asselin was three times
elected to Montreal city council and it was to his very great
credit.
Another thing that set Edmund Asselin apart was that after his
federal political career he did not call it quits. He set
about studying law, opened a law firm, and was later made a
judge.
This says a lot about his personality and his readiness to
tackle things with his fellow citizens.
On behalf of all my colleagues I extend my deepest condolences
to his family and particularly to all his friends who got to know
him very well and very likely got to work with him on issues
of importance to his community.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an
act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend
and repeal other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour today to stand and address the House on an act
that has responded to the concerns of Canadians, the youth
criminal justice act.
[Translation]
Canadians are aware that the justice system as it applies to
young offenders is not working as well as it should in a number
of important areas, and that it needs reworking.
[English]
We know that it will take a sustained effort, involving all
levels of government and many other partners, to tackle the
complex problems of youth crime and to build the fair and
effective youth justice system we deserve. That process is
underway.
Last June the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice
launched the government's national crime prevention program.
Since then millions of dollars have been invested in community
based crime prevention initiatives across the country dealing at
the front end with the root causes of crime, with a special focus
on youth at risk.
On March 11 the youth criminal justice act was introduced and I
am pleased to participate in this second reading debate.
Repealing and replacing the Young Offenders Act with the youth
criminal justice act is the next key step in the process of youth
justice renewal.
The new legislation will signal to Canadians that a new youth
justice regime is in place. The new legislation reflects the
messages Canadians want from their youth justice system: that it
first and foremost protects society; that it fosters values such
as respect for others and their property; that it insists on
accountability; that it provides both violent and non-violent
young offenders with consequences that are meaningful and
proportionate to the seriousness of the offence; that it be a
youth justice system that is inclusive, that engages Canadians in
a response to youth crime, and that it does a better job of
responding to the needs of victims; and that it be a system that
offers hope to youth, that gives youths who get into trouble with
the law a chance to turn their lives around for their sake, and
the sake of their families, their communities and all Canadians.
The youth criminal justice act includes provisions for more
meaningful consequences for the most serious violent young
offenders. It expands the list of offences and lowers the age at
which youth would presumptively receive adult sentences.
When the legislation is passed, youth 14 years and older, who
are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or
aggravated sexual assault, will receive an adult sentence unless
a judge can be persuaded otherwise. The judge would need to be
persuaded by the youth that a youth sentence would be adequate to
hold the young person accountable given the seriousness and
circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility,
age, maturity, et cetera, of the young person.
In addition, a fifth presumptive category for repeat violent
offenders would be created. Young offenders age 14 and older who
demonstrate a pattern of violent behaviour would receive an adult
sentence unless a judge can similarly be persuaded otherwise.
The act contains an important change to what may be the most
controversial aspect of our youth justice legislation, the
publication of names.
The debate on this issue essentially involves two legitimate and
competing values: the need to encourage rehabilitation by
avoiding the negative effect of publicity on the youth versus the
need for greater openness and transparency in the justice system.
1520
The proposed legislation now before the House strikes an
appropriate balance between the competing views. It would permit
the publication of the names upon conviction of all young
offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. The names of 14 to
17 year olds given a youth sentence for murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault or repeat violent
offences could also be published.
The proposed legislation would also, however, permit the crown
to give notice at the beginning of a trial that it will not seek
an adult sentence. This would mean that at the provincial or
territorial crown's discretion the young person would receive a
youth sentence and the young person's name would not be
published.
The youth criminal justice act would also replace the current
procedure for transfer to adult court by empowering all trial
courts to grant adult sentences so that youth retains
age-appropriate procedure protections and that justice can be
provided quickly, placing less of a burden on victims and
families. This will also ensure that the offender, the victim or
victim's family and the community see a clear and timely
connection between the offence and its consequences. Certainly
in my consultations this was a very important factor for
consideration.
The act contains other important reforms to the youth justice
system. In response to concerns by the law enforcement
community, judges will be given more discretion to admit
voluntary statements by youths as evidence at their trials.
In response to the concern of victims, victim impact statements
would be introduced in youth court and victims access to
information regarding proceedings would be improved. Again, this
is a very important aspect of the legislation.
The bill provides for an increased sentence for adults who
undertake to the court to respect bail conditions involving the
supervision of a young person who would otherwise remain in
custody and who willfully failed to comply with these conditions.
The bill provides that provinces may recover the costs of court
appointed counsel from parents and young people who are fully
capable of paying.
The record keeping system for youth records will be simplified
and allow for greater access by authorized people in the
interests of the administration of justice and research.
The majority of young people who get into trouble with the law
are non-violent and only commit one offence. Unfortunately there
are too many examples in our current youth justice system of
young people serving time in jail for minor offences.
We incarcerate youths at a rate four times that of adults, twice
that of many U.S. states and ten times that of many European
states. We incarcerate youths despite the fact that we knowingly
run the risk they will come out more hardened criminals. Prison
is a school for crime. We incarcerate them knowing that
alternatives to custody can do a better job of ensuring that
youths learn from their mistakes.
Bill C-68 includes criteria on the use of custody so that it is
used appropriately.
[Translation]
As well, the bill includes provisions for handling less serious
offences outside the legal system.
The police would be asked to consider all the options, including
informal alternatives to the judicial process, before laying
charges.
Police officers, the key partners in this strategy, would have
confirmation of their authority to use verbal warnings to direct
the young offender toward an informal police program such as a
family advisory group or a more formal program requiring
community service or compensation for the harm done to the
victim.
[English]
While every effort will be made to reduce the overreliance on
incarceration, some youths will be sentenced to custody. We
acknowledge that. The youth criminal justice act includes
provisions that respect an obligation to ensure that all young
people, particularly the most serious offenders, receive
effective treatment and rehabilitation. Successfully
rehabilitated youths means fewer victims, restored families,
safer schools, stronger communities and safer streets.
To this end, the bill includes an intensive custodial sentence
for the most high risk young offenders who are repeat violent
offenders or who have committed murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.
These sentences are intended for offenders with serious
psychological, mental or emotional illnesses or disturbances.
The sentence will require a plan for intensive treatment and
supervision of these offenders and will require a court to make
all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration
programs.
1525
The proposed legislation makes an important reform to youth
justice sentencing to foster the safe and effective reintegration
of youth back into their communities.
Under the new law, judges will be required to impose a period of
supervision in the community following custody. This would allow
authorities to closely monitor and control the young offender and
ensure he or she receives the necessary treatment and programs to
return successfully to the community.
The period of supervision administered by the provinces will
include stringent mandatory and optional conditions tailored to
the individual.
The bill proposes a comprehensive, balanced and flexible
legislative framework for youth justice. It was developed after
consultation with the provinces, the police, the bar, youth
justice workers, youth themselves, victims and many citizens
through numerous town hall meetings across the country.
The youth criminal justice act is based on an accountability
framework that promotes consequences for crime that are
proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. More serious
offenders could receive adult sentences or sentences of custody.
Less serious offenders will be dealt with through measures
outside the court process or be subject to constructive community
based sentences or alternatives. The act emphasizes that in all
cases youth should face consequences that promote responsibility
and accountability to the victim and the community and teach good
values by helping the young person understand the effect of his
or her actions.
The new youth criminal justice act offers provinces and
territories flexibility in choosing options in some areas. This
will allow them to address the unique needs, problems and
differences of their systems. Provisions in the act also
recognize the important role of victims and communities in
dealing with youth crime.
The next important phase of the renewal of youth justice is
directed at the implementation of a new youth justice
legislation. Youth justice professionals, community members and
others will need information about the new system and often
training. The best answers to the complex problems of youth
crime lie in integrated approaches. Effective youth justice
involves educators, child welfare and mental health systems,
voluntary organizations, victims, families, youth employers and
neighbourhood groups; just about anyone who works with or cares
about our children, our communities and our country.
Additional federal resources in the amount of $400 million over
the next six years have been made available to support the
important challenge of renewing our system of youth justice.
[Translation]
The government youth justice strategy opens the door to greater
involvement by the general public and professionals in youth
crime, and I encourage all Canadians to get involved.
[English]
I ask members of the House to support the new youth criminal
justice act so we can put in place the kind of youth justice
system that Canadians are seeking, one that protects society and
instils the values of accountability, responsibility and respect.
We owe it to Canadians and most especially to Canadian youth.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
last six years I have come to the conclusion that the Liberal
government is a list nut. It has to have a list that applies to
everything. For example, it indicate by a list who the hate law
applies to. Under the sentencing bill, a judge must take into
consideration certain things. If a person is up for murder the
last thing a judge has to consider on this list is whether the
person is aboriginal or not. I would like to know what that has
to do with anybody who takes a human life.
Now we come out with Bill C-68. I am afraid to use that name. I
guess the Liberals have attached that number to it to try to
confuse the public.
I hope the public does not get confused because this Bill C-68 is
no better than the other Bill C-68. Neither one of them is very
good.
1530
The government came out with another list of offences for which
adult sentences may be imposed. It is severely restrictive. The
list includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and
aggravated sexual assault.
Should sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking, aggravated
assault, kidnapping and a whole host of other violent crimes not
be included? Why is there just this restrictive little list?
Would he support adding more violent crimes to this all important
Liberal list?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the current Bill C-68 and
the one in the former parliament are excellent pieces of
legislation. There is no question that we want to zero in on
very serious offences, and we have done so.
My friend is criticizing us for having a list. He has his own
little list. All offences are serious. At what point do we
allow discretion? Where do we draw the line? They are serious
offences. Every offence is serious, even if it is the petty
crime of shoplifting.
We have to appreciate that our youth today do not necessarily
have the maturity that our good friend from Wild Rose has as a
former principal. They are young and impetuous. He should
realize that; he taught them for years and years. We cannot
treat all youth like adults for all crimes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what my colleague from Erie-Lincoln had to
say. I must admit that I find him particularly enthusiastic and
really highly optimistic about the consequences of Bill C-68,
which we are discussing today.
Does he really think it is an exceptional approach promoting
rehabilitation to put our 14-year old offenders in front of adult
courts, with adult sentences served in adult prisons?
Can he tell me whether, for example, revealing the name of young
people who are having problems and have committed crimes—but who
are having the problems—in the papers is a help to the young
person? We know adolescents often feel it is a big deal to have
their name in the paper
I am sure my colleague from Erie—Lincoln can answer these serious
questions.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the member asks several
questions. First I will deal with the publication of names. The
debate surrounding this subject centres on two conflicting
principles of legitimate and competing values. There is no
question that we have the need to encourage rehabilitation by
avoiding negative publicity. Opposite to that we have the need
for greater openness and transparency. Canadians have been
demanding this and it contributes to public confidence in the
system.
We are concerned about individuals who have committed grievous
offences and violent crimes and are not in custody. We are also
concerned about the safety of the public. There is no question
that 14 year olds will not go to adult prison. They will go to a
youth facility.
If we speak to some of the police officers, some youths at 14
and 15 years of age are tough little characters. Sometimes for
the safety of the public they have to be dealt with accordingly.
We have to look at the seriousness of the offences they have
committed and make an assessment.
The crown in its discretion can make a judgment call in that
respect as well and say that a child should be tried in a youth
facility. There is an option. I would say this would happen in
a minority of cases.
It is interesting to note the profiles of young people in youth
court. Only 15% were 14 year olds and two-thirds of them pleaded
guilty.
Crime by 14 year olds is certainly not in the same category as
crime by 16 year olds and 17 year olds as far as numbers go. I
do not think we will see many youths at 14 years of age being
tried as adults, but there needs to be that option where it is
deemed necessary.
1535
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the commitment of the hon. member to
this issue. As chair of the justice committee I commend him for
his ongoing efforts in this regard.
I have some problems with the bill with respect to the effort
that has been put into it on behalf of the government to give the
perception that it will be the cure-all and the end-all to some
of the problems that existed in the previous Young Offenders Act.
I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that the
bill from my perspective involves many substantive changes,
leaving it open for new interpretation by judges, prosecutors and
lawyers across the land. This legislation will lead to a great
deal of new judge made law and the type of law that will
potentially open loopholes.
I am sure the hon. member will agree that within the bill there
is greater discretion in areas when it comes to transfers. There
is greater discretion on the part of the police who will be asked
at the front end to decide whether they should lay charges. There
will be a long period of time before the full implications of the
bill are felt. It is a very complicated act.
Would the hon. member tell us why the government did not try to
draft a more streamline piece of legislation?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, any new act is subject to
judicial interpretation as lawyers look for loopholes. This act
was drafted with a view to assisting our youth at risk, our youth
in trouble.
There are some very good aspects of discretion such as police
warnings, a greater emphasis on prevention and a greater emphasis
on youth justice committees. These are all positive steps.
The theory of the law in black and white, as the member having
been a crown counsel would know, and the practice in our youth
courts are often a bit different. Sometimes a warning of taking
the child home to his family is much more effective than dragging
him from the schoolyard into court where there is strict
liability in those situations.
There are many more positive aspects to the legislation which
will be of benefit. Yes, there will be interpretations like
anything else, but on balance it is a good act. The aims and
aspects of it are very worthwhile. It will go a long way to
changing the image of youth criminal justice. There is good
emphasis on the protection of the public as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today at second reading of Bill C-68, an act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
acts. In more simple terms, this bill will replace the current
legislation on young offenders.
We will recall that the bill was tabled for first reading on
March 11. It is a product of the strategy to renew the justice
system for young people introduced last May, nearly a year ago.
This strategy and the bill have already received a lot of
comment in Canada, with the greatest opposition coming from
those involved in Quebec in youth crime.
I will return a little later to the position of both the
Government of Quebec and the organizations involved in managing
the Young Offenders Act.
It is blatantly clear that, in making the Young Offenders Act
more repressive as juvenile crime declines, the Minister of
Justice has caved in to the Reform Party lobby.
1540
Since the principles underlying this reform go back to the
strategy of renewing the youth justice system, it might be
interesting to know what the Minister of Justice thinks of the
present Young Offenders Act.
With a straight face, the minister says that the legislation is
lacking in clarity and contains a number of contradictory
principles.
In her view, the present legislation has three weaknesses: the
first is that prevention programs and alternative measures are
inadequate; the second is that violent young offenders are not
being properly sentenced and rehabilitated; the third and final
weakness is that there is too great an emphasis on custody for
non-violent offenders.
Yet, between 1991 and 1997, this same legislation was
responsible for a 23% drop in youth crime. Since 1995, the
number of young people charged with violent crimes has gone down
by 3.2%.
Interestingly, in 1997 the national crime rate for all age
groups had dropped 5% according to the police. And that was the
fifth year in a row that the crime rate had dropped, and the
year with the lowest crime rate since 1980.
These are not imaginary statistics.
These figures are from Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for
Justice Statistics. They are not just a product of wishful
thinking by the Bloc Quebecois. The facts are there, despite
what the minister says, and the legislation she wants to reform
has, nevertheless, proven itself.
Getting back to the drop in youth crime, it is noteworthy that
this decrease also applies to violent crime, which also
decreased in 1997 for the fifth consecutive year.
I could go on for some time giving statistics like these, but
what is clear is that youth crime has been on the downturn for
several years, thus confirming that the present legislation is
fulfilling its objectives of protecting society and
rehabilitating young offenders.
The former Minister of Justice and current Minister of Health,
whom I have the pleasure of seeing before me right now, spoke
out on a number of occasions on the present legislation, which
the government wants to reform, describing it as fulfilling its
objectives well. On June 2, 1994 for instance, in response to a
question in the House, he declared that “the government
continues to believe the youth justice system is fundamentally
sound, and we support it”. I see he persists with that.
He has also said, in response to another question, that no one
can imagine that society can resolve the problem of violent
crime by reworking its legislation. In fact, the criminal
justice system cannot put an end to violent crime all on its
own. It merely addresses the consequences of underlying social
problems. The House of Commons must devote at least equal time
to preventing crime.
However, the bill introduced by the minister focuses more on the
repression aspect than on rehabilitation. For example, the bill
extends the list of offences subjecting an adolescent to an
adult sentence.
The bill under consideration decrees that, at age 14, a young
offender may be sentenced as an adult. That is two years sooner
than under the current legislation.
In a number of instances, the bill provides that the identity of
an adolescent found guilty of a criminal offence will no longer
be kept secret.
This measure, specifically, raises a number of doubts. How
could it not be seen that, with the increased media attention
given crimes committed by young people, the publication of names
might become a positive thing, particularly among the young
involved in street gangs.
1545
These are but a few examples of the more repressive measures in
the bill. With the drop in crime among young people, this
reform is totally unnecessary in our opinion. It is socially
dangerous, because its negative effects could well yield the
opposite of what we are seeking.
The current Young Offenders Act as applied by Quebec is an
example for the rest of Canada, and the minister will surely not
contradict me on this, having so acknowledged on a number of
occasions. So why did she focus on repression in amending her
law instead of taking the approach Quebec takes with the Young
Offenders Act, which is to focus on rehabilitation?
We still do not have an answer. The only one I can think of,
and I did not find it in my crystal ball, is that it was
critical to silence the Reform lobby.
The legislation as it stands is serving its purpose very well in
Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest rate of youth
crime in Canada.
Although youth crime is still a troubling phenomenon and is
receiving increasing media attention, it is also on the decrease
in Canada. In 1997, it dropped by 7%, thus contributing to the
drop in the overall crime rate and confirming a trend observed
since 1991.
Therefore, rather than rushing into a reform that will favour a
repressive approach to youth crime, why was Quebec's model not
used? It is no surprise that stakeholders in Quebec have
reacted so strongly to Bill C-68.
In a March 11 press release, Quebec's Minister of Justice was
critical of the fact that Quebec had not been consulted before
the bill was tabled, despite the assurances given at the last
meeting of justice ministers.
She said, and I quote:
In my opinion, it is unnecessary to change a system that is
working and that already protects society very well, while
helping rehabilitate young offenders.
On March 19, a coalition of Quebec agencies interested in the
new Young Offenders Act had the following reaction at a press
conference:
For the benefit of those listening and for the minister's
benefit as well, I will list the Quebec stakeholders that took
part in this press conference.
I will begin with the Association des chefs de police et de
pompiers du Québec. Clearly, the police do not all think alike.
There was also the Commission des services juridiques, the
Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, respected Université de
Montréal criminologist Jean Trépanier, Aide communautaire
juridique de Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes
contravenants, Institut Philippe Pinel, the Conférénce de Régies
régionales, the Commission des droits de la personne et des
droits de la jeunesse, the Bureau des substituts du procureur
général du Québec, the Association des CLSCs et des CHSLD du
Québec, Marc Leblanc of the École de psycho-éducation de
l'Université de Montréal, the Regroupement des organismes de
justice alternative du Québec, the Child Welfare League of
Canada, and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.
All professionals concerned with the rehabilitation of young
people were present at this press conference, sending a very
clear signal.
The consensus in Quebec on the issue of young offenders is
clear.
1550
This bill which is even more repressive cannot help but have an
impact on the Quebec model. What will happen to our model if
sentences have to harmonize coast to coast? Will Quebec judges
be required to adjust their sentences to those being handed out
by their colleagues in other provinces? If this is the case,
one might wonder just how flexible this new act really is.
The Government of Ontario has already stated that it is very
much in favour of tougher treatment for young offenders. That
will not surprise anyone. That province can therefore be
expected to opt for young people to be sent before adult courts
more often, and is thus favouring prison sentences.
According to the Quebec Bar, “the real effects of these
provisions could well increase both the number and seriousness
of recidivism among young people”. This is why the Quebec model
does not advocate incarceration.
The minister should also review the entire question of financial
compensation to the provinces with respect to the application of
the existing legislation. In fact, the latest budget provides
$343 million more over three years for crime prevention,
including $206 million for reforming the Young Offenders Act to
permit the provinces to absorb the costs of applying the
proposed legislation.
The Government of Quebec considers that the lengthening of
sentences and the increased number of young people on trial in
adult court will cost it an additional $23 million annually.
When the Young Offenders Act became law in 1984, the federal
government paid 50% of the costs of applying the alternative and
the legal measures. As is its custom, the federal government
backed off a bit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding
represented no more than 36%.
Further ineptitude. In addition to the government's backing
off, its funding formula does not take into account the
percentage of Quebec's population of young people. Although
Quebec has nearly 25% of young people between the ages of 12 and
17, it receives only 18.28% of federal funding in this area.
This is not the first time Quebec has not received its fair
share.
Since 1989, therefore, Quebec has lost out on $77.4 million.
Furthermore, the former Minister of Justice and the present
Minister of Health promised to do something about this lack of
funding, but this promise went up in smoke—at the same time as
the former minister, apparently—because this promise was never
kept by the former minister and the present minister seems not
to have heard about it or is washing her hands of it.
Quebec is therefore still waiting for a specific proposal from
the Minister of Justice concerning repayment of this $77 million
shortfall. We do not know, however, how long Quebec's patience,
on this issue as on many others, will be tested.
To sum up, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill because
the consensus in Quebec with respect to young offenders is that
the bill's measures are unnecessary, ill-advised and even
threaten the continued existence of Quebec's rehabilitation-based
model.
Ultimately, the federal government should hand over to Quebec
full responsibility for administering the youth justice system
along with the associated funding. This would be the best way
of ensuring that a system that works for Quebec's youth, a
system that gives them a chance to become full-fledged members of
society, is allowed to continue.
It is distressing that the Minister of Justice has been unable
to convince the rest of Canada of the effectiveness of Quebec's
approach and that she has taken the path of least resistance.
For all these reasons, I move:
That the
motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That”
and substituting the following:
“Bill C-68, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons
and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time
but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the
subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.”
1555
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Laval Centre with great
interest, as well as the member for Erie—Lincoln, who is chair
of the justice committee. When I spoke to Bill C-68 I spoke
about the simplistic approach of the Reform Party.
The member for Laval Centre has indicated that when dealing with
youth involved in the youth justice system we are usually dealing
with poor, impoverished, broken home, substance abuse, family
violence victims.
I would ask the hon. member to comment on the opposition
position of high punishment and no rehabilitation. Does she not
agree that public safety starts with prevention?
The systemic problem of why people commit crimes has not been
addressed at any time by anyone. We seem to be putting band-aids
on problems that exist. We are not addressing the fact that most
of these people are already abused. The member for Wild Rose
talks about strapping them and hitting them with boards. The
member for Calgary Northeast talks about caning them, which is
some kind of unique approach to beat everyone into the ground.
I wonder if the member for Laval Centre could comment further on
that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret
that Bill C-68 goes too far for Quebec and not far enough for the
Reform Party.
In response to your question, I will read from the Jasmin
report. Members will see that, indeed, society has a
responsibility to provide an environment that will foster
individual growth. It reads:
It is often easier to change a law than to change practices of
intervention.
It may be tempting to think that tougher legislation is the
answer to the problems of delinquency. Simplistic responses
blind us to the full extent of complex problems and create the
false impression that we are doing what is necessary to resolve
them. One such simplistic response is substituting get-tough
measures for educational approaches. This, however, overlooks
the fact that adolescents are still in the process of learning,
and it means they are being saddled with full responsibility for
delinquency, as if the society and environment they live in had
nothing to do with it.
Here we have a statement of Quebec's values on the role of
society in helping young people to become law-abiding adults,
full-fledged citizens who are capable of assuming their
responsibilities in a world which, we must acknowledge, is
becoming a more and more complicated one, which does not make
things any easier for them.
I do not believe that Bill C-68 as it now stands fits the bill as
legislation making life easier for our young people.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment by the hon.
member for Laval Centre is in order.
1600
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I would like to just clarify for my Liberal friends that a
piece of wood is called a paddle and it is used for spanking.
Obviously the fellow across the way did not get his share when he
was young.
My question to the hon. member is this. It has been reported
that Quebec has the highest rate of suicide by teenagers and
young people in the world. Is she aware of that report?
One of the reasons given for suicide, and I found this out in my
many years of working with young people in school, is that it is
strictly out of fear of their peers. A lot of it is just
pressure.
We know there are a lot of things that have happened in our
society and in Quebec as well where real harm has come to young
people by young people. I would like the hon. member to respond
to that. A fear exists among young people. There are suicides.
I think there is a big connection. Would the hon. member agree?
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the problem of
suicide among young people is a serious one. In Quebec we
realize it is a fact we cannot avoid.
I will nevertheless point out to my colleague that fear may lie
behind the suicide of a young person. It is possible, I am no
expert. I simply want to say to him that the society with the
highest rate of incarceration is no doubt that of our neighbours
to the south, the United States. And yet their crime rate is the
highest.
I do not think that incarcerating young people will be a panacea
and that, suddenly, because we are putting everyone in jail, we
will no longer be afraid. There are real fears. The ones we
feel inside us. I think the problem of suicide cannot be
treated only by saying “We will make a rigid law, a demanding
one, and there will be no more problem”. That is simplistic.
The day the federal government decides to give $67 million back
to Quebec, the money could go to helping our young people
struggling with deep personal problems. This money could go to
helping them, to giving them psychological support in situations
that are often difficult.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the idea that Reform's policy on justice is simplistic
is absolutely wrong.
I have been putting forward a provision in my home province.
This bill continues to make sentences much harsher for juveniles.
This bill of course is government legislation. The thing I have
been pushing is there needs to be attached to this an education
system for youth as to what this bill entails and that would
prevent crime.
The hon. member referred to a lot of statistics.
My experience has been that Statistics Canada will change the
criteria for statistics. There will be provincial changes. Can
the member assure me that the statistics she is using and that
are being used by all these associations in Quebec are in fact
statistics that are used across Canada so that we are comparing
apples to apples and not apples to oranges?
1605
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker,
as I have already indicated in my speech, the figures I used
come from Statistics Canada. It is very clear that in speaking
of overall crime rates, we are of course referring to Canada.
And in order to state that the youth crime rate is lower in
Quebec than in the rest of Canada, we are of necessity still
using the same criteria.
This is totally logical, and I believe the people at Statistics
Canada to be professional, even if the name of their
organization is Statistics Canada. We are capable of
recognizing that.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know why it is. The member for Wild Rose is not the
justice critic, I do not believe. I stand to be corrected but I
do not think so. He seems to be the one out in the forefront of
Reform policy in this area. I guess it is because he spent many
years as a high school principal, which is mind boggling frankly.
I heard the comment on what causes youth suicide. He can
correct me if he wants to later on but I heard him use the word
fear. That really identifies what the Reform policy is all about
in terms of dealing with young people.
I can rather tragically talk with some experience about youth
suicide and others. I have experienced it in my family. A very
close friend of mine when he was 21 years old committed suicide.
He tragically laid down in front of a train.
We struggled with trying to understand. He was not a young
offender but we struggled with trying to understand what would
drive a 21 year old human being in his prime to do this. I can
give the assurance it was not fear. It was lack of hope. That
is the fundamental problem I believe we deal with any time we
deal with the issues of youth justice, young offenders, children
and young people at risk. It is unfortunate when people talk in
terms of fear instead of respect.
I have raised three young men. I am proud to say they are not
young offenders, even though I think when I was their age I
probably could have been, but was not.
It is respect. It is what the young people think about their
role models. It is how they look at their parents. It is how
they look at their teachers. It is how they look at their high
school principals.
I do not want to get into denigrating other members' comments so
I will not even attribute these except to say they were made by
members who are in this House at this moment, members of the
Reform Party. They do not talk just in terms of using a paddle
but have used things like “tasted a piece of wood” that somehow
that is an appropriate way of meting out discipline on a young
person in trouble, a young person who is rebelling, is confused,
who perhaps has made a mistake. They say the way to deal with
with that person is to have them taste a piece of wood. I find
that absolutely despicable.
I find it interesting coming from someone who worked in the
education system. I frankly find that scary. The one good thing
about the fact that that individual is here, elected as a member
of parliament, is that the member is no longer in the education
system taking pieces of wood to our young people. If the member
wants to try to take them to us, that is up to the member. I
welcome that any time. But at least that mentality in that
community has apparently been extricated from the education
system. That is a bonus. That is a plus. It is truly an
unfortunate attitude.
1610
Another member opposite says that the Reform Party position on
the Young Offenders Act or youth at risk is not simplistic.
Well, how about this: “Beating violent young offenders with a
rattan cane would not be too harsh a punishment”. Again,
another Reform MP's statement.
And Reform members wonder why people react negatively to their
remarks and comments. They wonder why they got 6% of the vote in
the Windsor byelection this past week. They cannot figure that
out. When they established a united alternative, or the united
alienation party, they had a convention and brought 1,500 people
to Ottawa. Then everybody scratched their heads and said
“Excuse me, I joined the Reform Party. Why are you throwing it
on the scrap heap? Why are you throwing the Reform Party in the
dump?”
I drew the short straw. I was there as a Liberal
representative. It was like sticking a thousand needles in my
eyes to spend the weekend there. It was like scraping one's
fingernails down the blackboard. It was unbelievably painful to
spend a weekend listening to the nonsense that was being espoused
and listening to avowed separatists coming forth to receive
standing ovations from these so-called purveyors of moderation.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member to which he referred was me and I did not say a
thousand needles. I said hot needles. I would just like to
correct that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure the world
rests much more comfortably now that has been put to rest.
An hon. member: He's the guy who beat up PSAC
single-handedly.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that what he did?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about
the bill, but I do want to point out a couple of anomalies, one
might say. There are a couple of statements and remarks made by
members of the Reform Party that show the reason they simply have
no credibility anywhere east of the Manitoba border and the
reason they are falling apart in western Canada.
Their cry used to be that the west wants in. Well, the west is
in. The west has tremendous representation at the cabinet table.
Sixteen Liberal members are doing all the work that the Reform
Party will not do for their constituents in western Canada. We
have a task force travelling across the west to try to pick up
the pieces because the Reform Party refuses to tell the people in
western Canada about the good work and the programs available,
put in place by this government. We have to do their work. They
should send a percentage of their paycheques to their colleagues
in those provinces in western Canada.
Here is another marvellous statement about how they would deal
with young offenders. This is about the dreaded repeat offender:
“The repeat offender will never see the light of day after
committing his second act”. The second time with one's hand in
the cookie jar and we are throwing away the key, that is it. Boy,
that is compassion.
It is the party that in some incredulous manner is trying to
convince the Canadian people that they have changed their
stripes, that they are softer and gentler. I do not think so,
and the Canadian public sure as heck does not think so.
Let me give a couple more before I go to the meat of the bill.
It says here “except in cases of very young offenders”. I
would like to hear that definition. I think I know what it is.
“Except in cases of very young offenders the identities of young
offenders must be made public”. We should think about that. A
youngster gets in some trouble. Sometimes young males are all
full of testosterone; they are excited, running around and they
do something stupid.
An hon. member: Like murder?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, that is the point. The Reform
Party member says “like murder”. Eighty-seven per cent of the
crimes committed by young offenders are not violent offences.
Reformers know that, but they consistently want to somehow
showcase the ones that are violent. This bill makes changes that
will deal with young violent offenders.
1615
There will be the option to publish the names of young violent
offenders, particularly if the justice system deems them to be a
menace or a danger to society. That is what the bill does. I am
astounded that members opposite did not stand and give a standing
ovation. This is what they have been asking for.
Going back to the point that except in cases of very young
offenders the identity should be made public, their definition of
a young offender should be 10 years old. A 10 year old gets in
some trouble and he is charged by the police. He stole
something; he was shoplifting. He got in with a bad gang of
kids. Who knows what it was? Maybe tragically he got involved
with drugs. They would have his name on the wall at the golf
club, I suppose, as being late paying his dues. They would
somehow do the scarlet letter on this 10 year old child.
How in God's name can anybody that is at all responsible, being
an elected member in a place like this and representing
constituents in this wonderful country, stand there with a
straight face, without total shame, and suggest that is any kind
of credible way of dealing with a 10 year old child in trouble
with the law? It is truly frightening, frankly.
I know they want to soften the image. I know they want to
change the position as far as the public is concerned. They
talked about it at the UA conference that I referred to. One
interesting thing about being an elected representative in this
great democratic society is that people have a nasty habit of
holding politicians accountable for the things they say. They
had better think before they say them.
They come out with a statement saying that the Reform Party
supports legislation which would allow the publication of the
names of all convicted offenders, including young offenders. The
bill says if it is a violent offence, if there is danger to
society, the option is there. That should address their
concerns. To simply say that we should publish the names of
every person who gets in trouble with the law from the age of 10
on up is so nonsensical as to be almost laughable.
I want to refer to some good stories. I have the honour of
chairing a group called the prime minister's task force on youth
entrepreneurship. Recently I was at a hearing in Halifax at
which we heard from young entrepreneurs, service providers, and
people involved in helping young people.
It was a wonderful establishment, by the way. I would say to
members from Nova Scotia that I believe the province of Nova
Scotia has it right. I have been right across the land, through
the west and down east. We are continuing to travel. We will be
going north and through Ontario and Quebec. Nova Scotia has five
operations, two of which I have seen in Windsor, Nova Scotia, and
one in Halifax, called Open for Business. Open for Business is
like the Planet Hollywood of youth entrepreneurship. It is
wonderful. The one in Windsor is in a shopping mall and the
other one is in downtown Halifax. They are just alive with young
people.
We were at a hearing where we had some young entrepreneurs in a
panel that appeared before us in a group discussion. Senator
Moore was with us and he asked a question of a very young lady
who was one of the young entrepreneurs. He said “How did you
find out about Open for Business?” Her answer was astounding.
She said “My parole officer told me”. We were all stunned at
the remark because just looking at this person would certainly
not fit the profile of what we might expect to be an individual
who had a parole officer.
She had started a business. I will not go into details about
her business. She had been convicted under the Young Offenders
Act. She has a four year old son at home. She was contacted and
was told that she was a candidate for a program in the province
of Nova Scotia called second chance. Obviously second chance is
what this bill is all about.
This young woman came in and met with the counsellors. She met
with peers. She met with young people. The real key to success
in the Open for Business concept is that there are peer
counsellors, young people who have had a bit of entrepreneurial
experience and can work with young people who have great ideas.
Mr. Mahoney
1620
In the province of Manitoba in the month of July I will be
attending a camp that is run for youth at risk. It is another
second chance program. It is an opportunity for young people to
come into a camp where they are taught life skills and
entrepreneurial thinking.
This is absolute cutting edge stuff. This is stuff that we
should be spreading the gospel about throughout the land. We
should be inviting young people at risk to get involved in the
camp in Manitoba and to go to places like Open for Business and
get involved in second chance. This stuff works.
The young woman I met in Nova Scotia has turned her life around.
She now has a business that has been open for eight months. She
takes her four year old son to work with her because it is the
type of business where the child is not in the way and she can
function.
Even if the business were to close tomorrow, this young woman
has turned her life around. I do not know what her crime was.
She has a parole officer. I suspect it must have been fairly
serious. I do not think we assign parole officers to youths
coming out of school. She has turned her life around, even if
her business were to fail, because of the work done by the men
and women and the young people in the province of Nova Scotia at
this wonderful place called Open for Business and this wonderful
program called second chance. That is what has turned her life
around.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Don't go away. I will be right
back.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I will not go away, trust me. The
hon. member can trust me. I am with the government.
It is this kind of intervention we should be doing more of
instead of coming up with nonsensical statements about pieces of
wood, caning, punching and hitting. We just do not beget respect
from young people by treating them that way.
I understand fully that there was a generation which believed in
that. I attended a Catholic boarding school. If we want to talk
about pieces of wood and paddles, they used closed fists and
boots to take care of their discipline. That is what happened to
me. It has had lasting, damaging effects. The violence I saw in
that school meted out by men of the cloth, I would not tolerate
now for one second if it were my son. It is wrong, but in the
1950s and 1960s it was commonplace. It was the way of dealing
with things. It is the way we were brought up. I do not blame
people for that. It was a mentality that came out of that
generation. I do not totally understand it.
I grew up in a family of 10 kids. My dad was a labour leader.
He was just as likely to cuff me across the head as not. He was
a tough man. That was the mentality that he grew up in, that I
grew up in. It is not the mentality of my sons. Even though I
consider myself to be a very strong disciplinarian, I use my head
and heart instead of my fists.
I think that is what the bill does. It has a mind and it has a
heart. It takes on the issue of young offenders and gives young
offenders an opportunity to start over again, to have a new life.
If they commit a crime a second time it means we have to work
with them.
There are elements to the bill that will put requirements on
young offenders as part of the sentencing that will occur. They
will have to do work in the community and obey certain rules.
They will have to stay drug free and alcohol free. They will not
associate with certain individuals with whom they might have got
into trouble. Maybe they were a member of a gang. That happens
today. Tragically we see it in the greater Toronto area too
often. Maybe they will have to live up to a curfew.
The idea of curfews in some communities is repugnant. It
probably makes sense. If they break the rules imposed by the
justice system under this new law, they can be hauled right back
into court and put into custody. It gives them a chance.
1625
If Canada is known for anything in the world, it is that we
offer hope, we offer a chance, and we care about our young
people, in fact all our people. There can be some changes. I do
not have a problem with making some changes at committee or with
taking a look at improving the bill. That may well make sense.
However, some policies have been espoused against the bill. To
oppose the bill because one is a separatist and thinks that it
does not give enough power to the provinces or because one does
not think it goes far enough and wants to incarcerate 10 year
olds, is a most unfortunate use of the privilege of being a
member of parliament. It is an abuse of the power we all have as
representatives of the people.
Obviously I support the bill. It is about time we amended and
reworked the Young Offenders Act. This is positive. This is
good for young people. I think it will be good for our justice
system.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
tough to ask the member any questions after that kind of speech,
especially when he does not even know what he is talking half the
time. I might as well talk about the years I spent in school
because he raised them.
I spent a number of years there. I went through a number of
school boards and a number of superintendents, all of whom gave
me high praises and letters of merit. All kinds of great things
came out of that experience for the way I operated, which was a
gentle but firm tough love method. I never doubled my fist and
neither did anybody else. We had a kids at risk program that
worked very effectively. We were able to identify kids as low as
grade one who were at risk. We were able to work effectively and
it did not take legislation. It did not take anything but good
common sense. Many people's lives were straightened out before
it ever got to that point.
During those earlier years we had the freedom to operate as
individuals with intelligence enough to know how to truly deal
with some of the problems, regardless of the member's rhetoric.
He does not know anything about it. He was not there. He read a
little teeny clip, which was probably my talking about when I got
a piece of wood, which is neither here nor there.
In the early eighties along came the Liberal government which
brought in a charter of rights and then the Young Offenders Act.
Suddenly everybody in the school on the kids at risk programs
were tied. They could not do certain things because the
government would not allow the good things that were going on to
happen. Now it is espousing that these things should happen. Yet
the charter of rights stops half of it. That is Liberal
legislation. The Young Offenders Act came into being in 1984 and
violent crime escalated, and the members knows that. What does
he say about that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, every once in a while I
hear this member start out by making some sense. He even shows a
bit of compassion when he talks about working with young people.
I would believe that if he worked in the education system in his
home community he probably was a decent person to those young
people.
I do not know why he said these things. Why would he say that
they should taste a piece of wood if he really cared about young
people? I do not know why. I made the point that when we speak
in this place we are accountable. Maybe the hon. member did not
realize when he was talking to a reporter that the reporter would
actually repeat it. Maybe that was the problem. He thought he
was just kidding. I do not now, but it does not surprise me.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Just answer the question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am going to use my
prerogative and recognize the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.
1630
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having been
a teacher myself, I would not have liked to have had a principal
like some members I see here. My principals were very humane
people and when someone was having problems they tried to
understand why, instead of punishing them.
I myself have hidden delinquent students in one office or
another. I have taken some of them home with me. They made
progress, slowly, and I can tell you that today—and I say this in
front of everyone, so they will hear it too—they have become
upstanding citizens.
I was listening to my colleague from the government party.
He wondered how people could be in difficulty. How could some
become delinquents?
He said something very true. Very often, it is because of
hopelessness. These young people are given nothing. They are
not challenged. They are 12, 14 or 15 years old, and their
parents do not work. There is a major problem.
It is really tough for someone who loses his job at 40, 45 or
50. The child is at home and can see what is happening. The
child realizes that he could end up like his father.
This is a problem for society. Fortunately in Quebec there is a
challenge offered: sovereignty. Young people in the CEGEPS and
universities are following us. Our clientele is essentially the
young people.
I would like to put a question to the hon. member for
Mississauga West. Instead of hiding in a law harsher than the
previous one—and we know that former works relatively well and
this is why we oppose the bill—should we not put more money into
prevention for elementary and secondary school students rather
than corner them in a law?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the
member is saying. I think philosophically I would be much more
likely to agree with this member's attitude about dealing with
young people than I would with the party that would throw out the
bill of rights and all of those aspects.
However, I do not understand why the Bloc would suggest that we
stay with the current act. We have seen problems with the Young
Offenders Act. Difficulties have been pointed out and there is a
valid criticism of the lack of ability to deal with violent young
offenders. It is not much of a deterrent when a young offender
knows that the worse he or she is going to get is three years in
jail for committing violence.
There has to be some ability to move violent young offenders
into the adult court system. Thirteen percent of young offenders
who commit crime commit violent crime. That is one of the
changes which this bill will effect.
There also has to be, and should be, an ability to protect
society. We can do that by publishing the names of young
offenders when the justice system deems they are a danger to
society.
There are changes which I think the hon. member should realize
are important improvements to the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Mississauga West for what I thought
was a very good speech. It is a pleasure to watch a real pro get
a good head of steam up now and then, especially when they are
comments that I can associate with.
I have quite a bit of personal knowledge about young offenders,
street gangs and so on, coming from Winnipeg. In the inner-city
of Winnipeg we have quite a serious problem. We have been forced
to deal with it and forced to find lasting solutions.
I want to thank the member for pointing out some of the exciting
and innovative things that are being done in the province of
Manitoba to try to deal with kids as kids. The member clearly
pointed out the folly in treating kids like adults in terms of
the criminal justice system.
1635
Former Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, Yvon Dumont, was the
first Metis lieutenant governor of Manitoba. He started
something that was called the Lieutenant Governor's Foundation
for Youth. I was a member of its board prior to being elected to
this place. One of the things he pointed out in dealing with the
young people who were causing a lot of the property crimes in the
inner-city, like car theft, was that these kids do not steal these
cars for the lousy $50 that they get from some fence, although
that certainly is part of it.
What really motivates these kids to steal half a dozen cars in
an evening is that they crawl underneath the steering column in
the car, they break it open, find the three wires, push them
together and the thing starts. It is exciting and it is
interesting. It is auto electronics. It is like the thrill a
mechanic gets when he tunes up a car.
These kids have some redeemable virtues in the fact that they
are interested. They would make good apprentices.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of the member who just spoke. He called me a pro. The member
who spoke before him said that I was stupid. I think I will
accept the latter definition.
To follow up on his point, the member said they would make
good apprentices. I raised that point at one of our youth
entrepreneurship hearings. I asked a question and I was really
surprised at the answer. I asked “Has anybody thought about
young offenders being entrepreneurs?” Everybody laughed. There
was a professional in the audience who stood and said “As matter
of fact we have”.
Outside of the violent young offender, a young offender is very
much like an entrepreneur, but in a negative way. If we can take
these young people and put them in programs to redirect and
refocus their energy, I think we might have something.
There is proof in Manitoba. I congratulate the province and the
member for that. There is proof in Nova Scotia. I saw it
firsthand. I met with the young people.
I would invite these dinosaurs to come to the camp in Manitoba
in July to meet some of these youth at risk, these young people
who they would take a block of wood to or who they would cane.
Come and meet these kids to see how they are turning their lives
around. That is what this bill is about.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Mississauga South—Taxation.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to extend
questions and comments on this particular dissertation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the member for
Blackstrap have a specific time in mind?
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I think another 10 minutes
would be sufficient.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Blackstrap has asked for unanimous consent to extend the time
provided for questions and comments to the member for Mississauga
West by 10 minutes. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe
the member was not here from 1993 to 1997, but in the previous
government I spent a lot of years as one of the major critics of
the Young Offenders Act and other parts of the justice system,
which I will continue today because I have the opportunity.
I want to make a couple of things quite clear. First, my party
and I believe that the number one success to youth crime is
prevention.
That is why we had kids at risk programs going on in the school
which I operated for about 30 years until legislation came from
the Liberal government which prevented us from doing so because
we were not entitled to do some of the things we were allowed to
do previously. We had to recognize certain things under the
charter, which destroyed the ability of the police to work with a
free hand, not in a violent way, but in a way that solved
problems. Most of those young people are now parents and some
are even grandparents who are grateful that we did these things.
1640
I would like the member to come to some of the class reunions.
I go to them every year. It is nice to be able to reminisce and
to hear the thanks and praise from the students of the past for
the work that we did on their behalf.
I know that prevention works. I know that is where a lot of the
money should be spent; upfront, working on prevention.
I heard the previous member ramble on about publishing names. I
will tell him about a couple of incidents.
When I was a principal of a school and received a student from
another area, perhaps it was from another province or another
city, we had all of the information about the individual. We
could determine what we needed to do on the student's behalf in
terms of education, social life or whatever. These young people
would transfer into the school. After the Liberal government's
legislation in the 1980s under the charter of rights, as a
principal I did not have the right to receive information about
any previous criminal record or anything else about a young
person who showed up on our doorstep. We had to admit him.
Perhaps he was 15, 12 or 18. It did not matter. I had no right
to that information.
A lot of these people who were coming in from other areas had
been kicked out of every school they had been to. A great deal of
it was for criminal activity, and a lot of it was for violent
criminal activity. Therefore, we were not in a position to
provide any assistance which might have helped this individual
with their problem. Instead we had to accept the student with no
questions asked because we could not publish anything about these
young people. As a result, I cannot even begin to tell members
how long the list was of victims who came out of my own school
and my own community because we did not know about that
individual until after they continued down the same path for
which they had been removed from a previous school before they
had transferred to our school.
I will have to give the Conservative government one bit of
credit. It will be very small. It did allow under the Young
Offenders Act for certain information to be given to school
authorities and other officials who might have a bearing on the
lives of these individuals.
The Liberals would have never done that. It is better not to
publish or let people know that these young people may be violent
individuals. In the Liberals' view it is better not to let
school authorities know.
Please tell me how that prevents crime. If there is a family
with young children, would they not like to know if a young
offender living next door had been in trouble in other places for
having molested young children? As a parent, would that not be a
good thing to know? Should school authorities not know about
these particular individuals?
The Liberals' prevention method is to pour out money and then
hope that the provinces will come up with something which will
solve their problem, which they created in the 1980s when they
brought in their loosey-goosey Young Offenders Act and the
charter of rights at the same time, protecting everyone except
the victims. Since that time the number of victims has escalated
to such a degree that the 10 year report on the Young Offenders
Act is a disgrace.
It is not all the fault of the act. It is the fault of the
government which suddenly decided that we cannot publish names of
individuals who could be a problem.
1645
The government is at fault for making legislation that says
people can no longer discipline in any fashion that might seem
abusive, such as with a paddle or a strap. In my opinion, there
was always a place for that in the schools. It was not used in a
violent way and was seldom ever used, but there was a time when
it was necessary and most of the time it was effective.
Government members would not understand those kinds of
preventive measures. They talked the good talk on prevention,
but I have not heard one good suggestion out of their mouths
about how we should spend the money.
Prior to the Liberals coming in, people like the ones in my
community and others had good programs in place. We were able to
put them in place because there was not a Liberal government to
stop us from doing so through silly legislation.
I cannot believe there could be a government in existence that
would say that the public really does not know what is good for
them; that it must pass legislation because the poor souls in
Canada do not even know how to raise children in their own homes.
Why, they might spank them, for goodness sakes. It cannot allow
that, so it wants to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code
which says that parents cannot spank their children any more,
even if they think that is what they would like to do.
Nobody dislikes abuse more than this guy. I have seen it in my
from peers in my own school. When I really saw it was after the
Young Offenders Act and the charter of freedoms and rights came
in. Everything went sky high.
The Reform Party does not want to put 10 and 11 year olds in
jail. We do not want to lash them or cane them. Nobody has ever
said that. What we are saying is that we want them in the system
so we can work with them and get them to a point where they will
cease and desist from any activities of a criminal nature.
In Calgary a young person stole 150 cars before he was aged 12.
In every instance there was nothing anybody could do except
return him to his house and that was the end of it. He would
then go out and do it again. When did this young fellow stop
stealing cars? He stopped on his 12th birthday. He was smart
enough to know that he could not continue that activity because
from that point on he could be arrested and put in the criminal
justice system. The government knows about that. That is not an
isolated case. It also happened in Vancouver. I am not sure how
many cars the young fellow in Vancouver stole, but it was the
same story.
When I introduced a private member's bill dealing with young
offenders and even adults who steal cars, there was a member of
the Liberal government who dared to say something to the effect
that the member for Wild Rose was out of his mind because he
wanted to punish children who were simply taking a car for a
joyride. He said there was nothing wrong with joyriding; that
was a normal thing for young children to do. Stealing cars is
not a normal thing to do.
It is fine for a person to learn how to be a mechanic, a good
entrepreneur or fix cars. However, I would like the NDP member
to know that learning how to hotwire a car in order to steal it
is not really the best way to get an apprenticeship in the
mechanics of a car. There are surely better ways. Maybe we
should give these young people the opportunity for rehabilitation
through some good solid programs.
Once again, the Liberals talk prevention and talk
rehabilitation, but I have not heard one good suggestion about
what that program might look like. Nobody can disagree with
that. Everybody agrees with prevention and rehabilitation but
they do not know how to do it.
An hon. member: Money.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes. As my hon. colleague from the
NDP says, we have not heard about the amount of dollars that the
Liberals are prepared to spend to help prevent crime and to
rehabilitate these young people.
I have not heard anything on that. Lord knows the government
taxes us enough. There should be an ample supply of it laying
around somewhere. The government has not done anything about
that.
1650
I do not know what is wrong with the Liberal government. It
really likes making lists. We have a hate law in Canada. Let me
paint a little scenario. A guy hates his mother-in-law so he
murders her. Well that will not be considered under hate crimes
because mother-in-laws are not on the list.
Another example is a kid in school who is built a little
differently. Maybe he is fat and considered to be ugly or
homely. We just do not like him so we want to get him. Wait a
minute, fat ugly kids are not on the list so it does not fit
under hate crimes.
Then lo and behold the Liberals come up with another phenomenal
list, a list that says it is going to get tough on some of these
individuals. What does the list consist of? Let us take a look.
The Liberals are going to get really tough on those who commit
serious crimes by putting them into adult court after one
conviction for murder, manslaughter, attempted murder and
aggravated assault. That means that if a young offender kidnaps,
sexually assaults with a weapon, commits an armed robbery or a
host of other violent crimes, nothing too serious is going to
happen. The young offender will remain under the old Young
Offenders Act because those crimes are not on the list.
I really do not understand what is wrong with the government. It
seems to like the idea of coming up with lists every time we turn
around. If the crime is not on the list then it is not a hate
crime. If the crime is not on the list then it is not a violent
crime and would not result in adult court or adult punishment.
That is the key word. I really do not understand why anybody in
the House of Commons or why any adult would not believe that the
consequences of wrongdoing should not involve a degree of
punishment.
We do not want to talk about incarceration in the House. It is a
dirty word. Community sentencing is a nice word. The government
recently came out with Bill C-41. This bill is supposed to come
under the Conditional Release Act where people who commit
non-violent crimes will be able to serve their time helping in
their community as punishment for their crime. I agree with
that. I do not believe for a moment that non-violent offenders
need to be behind bars. They need to be out in public paying for
their crime in the community. They need to make restitution for
the loss they have caused their victims. There are a lot of
things they have to do which are all part of the punishment
picture.
What is happening under the government's legislation is that
violent offenders, including those who commit manslaughter or
second degree murder, are being released back into the community
under community supervision. There is something wrong with that
picture.
All of a sudden we have cases under the section dealing with
sentencing. There are a number of things that we must consider
before passing a sentence. I agree. One of the very last ones
regarding the sentencing of an individual is—and this includes
the person who is charged with murder, manslaughter or
whatever—that we must consider whether the individual is
aboriginal or not.
If someone takes a person's life, what difference does it make in
regard to his or her race or background? I have never seen a
piece of legislation that is any more discriminatory than the
legislation that keeps coming from the Liberals. I was shocked
when I looked at the Criminal Code. Time after time I found they
had made a list and anybody else did not apply to that list. That
is discrimination in the worst kind, in the most subtle way.
1655
We believe in equality, but this legislation is the most
divisive kind of legislation I have ever seen when we start
identifying that we have to take into consideration what
nationality an individual is before passing sentence.
One judge told me not too long ago that we must treat different
people differently. A judge told me in a conversation that we
cannot treat unlike people in the same way. “Never mind the
victim, never mind the crime. Let us talk about the offender”,
this judge says. “If he is not the same as others might be in
terms of race or nationality then he must be treated
differently”. That is Liberal law, the most divisive and most
discriminatory law that exists. Why do we allow that?
I looked at the Liberal wisdom. This cannot be any more than
just Liberal wisdom which is no wisdom at all. We are talking
about the youth criminal justice act. Guess what the number of
the bill is? C-68. My, my, what a coincidence.
The last Bill C-68 which is now law is not going very well. I
understand it is almost up to a billion dollars in cost and it is
going nowhere because nobody knows what they are doing, but after
taking directions from the Liberal government that does not
surprise me in the slightest. However, to dare number this bill
as C-68 is quite the strategy. We will name it Bill C-68.
I want the Canadian public to be careful when talking about Bill
C-68 from now on because we will be talking about the youth
criminal justice system and not the gun control bill. What a
piece of strategy. What a work of wisdom. Let us keep the
public confused and then they will not question us.
What goes in the front door at a committee is usually what comes
out the back door. As hard as we try to amend or change it, that
is usually what comes out because orders will come from the front
row to not amend or change the bill and to vote yes on it. The
old puppets and the old sheep will jump up and lo and behold it
will become law. There is no doubt about it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am still
very surprised to hear such a hard-line speech about young people
in this place, and I am particularly surprised by our
colleague's definition of prevention.
He seems to view prevention as an activity that only comes into
play after the offence.
1700
I find this rather surprising, because he talks to us about
lists, as though young people should be stigmatized. This is
unacceptable.
We have always seen prevention as coming before the offence.
For there to be prevention, there has to be education, guidance
and resources in our schools, often at the time when young
people are having difficulty.
I would like to ask my Reform Party colleague what he means by
the term prevention, which he has used repeatedly in his speech.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I guess I will have to
repeat my speech. I thought I had clarified that quite nicely.
I talked about kids at risk programs that we had in the school.
We caught many young people, even as low as grade 1. We were
able to work with them and prevent them from committing future
crime. I talked about that a great deal. Maybe the member's
earplug was not in. I do not know.
I could go on and talk about it some more but that is what I was
talking about, kids at risk programs. All those kinds of things
can be put into place. I thought I had covered that but maybe I
did not.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend. I
always enjoy his presentations. I find I agree with much of what
he says, but not all of what he says. I will not focus on what I
do not agree with.
The member talked about prevention and the program he had in his
school that was so successful. Could the hon. member give some
thought to the causes of crime? I know he is an educator and has
a lot of experience in the field. In his experience, why is it
that certain young people go afoul of the law? Is there any
commonality in their backgrounds? Is there any commonality in
their experiences that he has been able to identify so that we
can begin to focus on not only the crime itself but the
fundamental causes of crime?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question. I know there will not be enough time to
answer it. It is a difficult question to answer, but not in all
cases.
I can only give examples. I remember little Eddie whose grade 1
teacher brought him to me. He had been kicking her in the shins
and had pulled a knife on her. That was an indication there
could be a problem. We identified that there was a serious
problem with little Eddie. I tried to bring in the family, the
mother and the father. I said we had to begin the process of
helping this young fellow out.
Unfortunately there was no father and the mother worked all the
time, and worked hard. He had no supervision. That was a shame.
No supervision is not good for young people, especially at six
years of age. We had lots of problems in that area where
supervision seemed to be unavailable and therefore kids would
lean into trouble.
Another problem that came up quite often was caused by low
self-esteem, kids put down by peers and in some cases put down by
teachers and parents. They had low self-esteem and needed
recognition to become somebody. Especially if they had any brute
strength, to be a bully was the way to be, to do something that
would attract some attention. I have seen these very same kids
break into tears when we began working with them because that is
not what they wanted. It is a cry for help.
The list can go on. Sometimes some kids are just rotten to the
core and I do not know why. There is no excuse for it. I have
had parents ask “What am I going to do? He will not listen to
us. We tell him he can't go out. He breaks the window and goes
out and he doesn't come home until the next morning. If we try to
punish him, he goes to the police and cries child abuse”.
It goes on and on. It is really a tough one to answer. I had
better not take much more time or Madam Speaker will cut me right
off.
1705
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my colleague from Wild Rose if he would agree
with a few brief comments.
The member for Mississauga West mentioned in his speech that
young people are often full of testosterone. I can tell the
House that the member for Mississauga West is definitely not full
of testosterone, but most likely the stuff that I wipe off my
boots when I come from the corral.
I still have the notion that I may support this bill and I want
to ask the member about that. But it is speeches like those of
the member for Mississauga West that make me think and wonder
what I am doing. Again, the bill is very little in the right
direction, but perhaps that is all we can expect from the Liberal
government.
Would the hon. member agree with me that it is members like the
member for Mississauga West who give this institution a bad name?
Certainly in my opinion he is nothing but a blowhard windbag who
in my opinion is a waste of skin.
An hon. member: Could he be a little more explicit about
that? What does he really mean?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the
member really means, but I think I agree with him.
The sad part about it is that there are some genuine people over
there who are serious about doing something about the Young
Offenders Act. There is also a bunch of them over there who do
as they are told. They have studied legislation to no degree
because they know they will have to vote the way they are told.
If we had free votes in this House, if we could have open
debate, if we could have legislation come to the justice
committee and know that the justice committee is going to effect
the change, but we know that most of the legislation that comes
in the front door of the justice committee goes out the back door
in the same form that it came in. Those are the orders and that
is why there has to be a Liberal majority on a committee.
The process and the way we handle business is wrong. It is a
shame. I would not like to sit in the House of Commons in a
place where I would not be allowed to study legislation and be
able to vote according to what I or the people that I represent
feel. Unfortunately, the member for Mississauga West has to do
all he can to make sure that he gets heard and known, gets on TV
and gets well advertised, because he will always be on the
backbench. He will never have the opportunity to be on the front
bench so he can tell the rest of them what to do.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I agree with
just about everything the member had to say. It shocked me when
I sat here and listened to the members before him speak.
If some young person breaks into a car and hot wires it, they
are becoming entrepreneurs. This is coming from members in the
House. The hon. member from Nipissing stated that because young
people steal cars they are just being children.
That is what is wrong here. I have gone around schools and
talked to children who are afraid of children. I have talked to
their parents who have said “The government has handcuffed us.
We cannot do anything. The government has taken the right of
parenting away from us. It has become the almighty parent and it
penalizes us if we try to do anything to help our own children to
stop this type of stuff”.
I would like the hon. member to comment.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
absolutely correct. Parents, the police and myself used to work
very effectively with young people in our community. We never
had to go to court, never had to make an arrest. We involved the
parents, we involved the police and we involved the school
authorities. We were very successful.
But this government brought down certain pieces of legislation
and the next thing, I had to open my desk drawer, pull out a
little piece of paper and before I could even begin thinking
about discipline or helping the young person I had to say “You
have the right to remain silent. You have the right for me not
to call your parents in”, all of the gobbledegook that has come
out of this Liberal government.
1710
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the question
and answer period for the honourable and well respected member
for Wild Rose for 10 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there consent to
extend the time?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I feel like I have reached into the bag and drawn
the black marble. After the member for Mississauga West has
spoken and gets the member for Wild Rose all riled up, I happen
to be the next person to speak.
Because I have already spoken on the bill, I am speaking on the
amendment brought forward by the Bloc which basically takes the
bill away from what it was intended to do. The bill was intended
to deal with the youth justice system in a fashion that is
reasonable. For some people it would be going too far and for
others, not far enough.
In my experience as a parole officer in Ontario for a short time
in my former life, I dealt with the Young Offenders Act when it
came in in 1984. I knew when it came in that it needed to be
refined, retuned and readjusted because it did not address some
of the glaring problems.
Bill C-68 has addressed some of the problems that were in
evident need to be addressed. It was done after much
consultation and time spent with the various people in the
criminal justice system, in the parole system and the people who
work with youth. A lot of thought has gone into it.
I do not know that it addresses the systemic problem that exists
in our society that we as the highest court in the land have to
deal with, and that is lack of education, lack of training for
parenthood, disadvantaged people, people from broken homes. If I
were to sit down and write a report before I saw a case file and
I put broken home, substance abuse, dropped out of grade 8, lack
of motivation, lack of confidence, abused as a child, I would
catch probably 80% to 90% of the people I dealt with in that
system.
We look at the answers and the simplistic approach of the Reform
Party. The member for Calgary Northeast was going to study
caning as a way to address the problems of the youth justice
system. Certainly, I found that not a way I could agree with. If
our answer to a person who has been beaten all their life is to
give them another beating, somehow that has absolutely nothing to
do with what is being proposed in Bill C-68. It has nothing to
do with the systemic problems of our society and that is how to
deal with people at a young age.
My wife is a special education teacher in an elementary school,
a resource person as they call it. She deals with people who are
in trouble at a very early age. As with the problems I talked
about, there is the lack of parenting, the lack of people having
some kind of a system of rules, a system of looking at whether
courses should be mandatory for certain people, whether it is
more involvement with the Children's Aid Society or whether it is
more involvement with the youth justice system very early in our
schools. That is what we have to look at.
What do I do in a parole hearing when a young woman has dropped
a baby off a balcony because the baby was crying too much? We
look into the problems that exist with that person being tried in
an adult court, as she was, and not having any of the advantages
of people who grew up in a home where maybe two people were
working.
1715
Here we have a person who is suffering from serious substance
abuse and serious societal problems who ends up in jail and has
to be kept in the hospital section for fear of being attacked by
the other inmates who feel that this crime is very serious. Their
way of approaching and dealing with that crime is to inflict more
pain on the person who committed the crime, somehow falsely
thinking that would be a cure or that suddenly the problem would
dissolve.
That is what we are trying to do here with Bill C-68. Basically
the amendment would gut the bill and make it worth nothing. I
think the bill requires us as a government to promote it, to take
advantage of all the study that has been done and to analyse it.
Members of parliament should look at it, analyse it and decide
where they want to make changes. They should follow them
through. They should not make changes because they belong to the
Reform Party or because they are against everything that the
Liberal Party does.
I run into people in society who hate Liberals, who hate
Catholics and who hate Christians. I am all of those so I have a
problem sometimes right at the start in dealing with that. People
are like that in society. They grow up in certain areas and are
expected to do certain things. We have to break out of that
mould in order to advance and to advance our youth.
Some of the problems were dealt with by the hon. member for
Mississauga West, although he does it in a way that inflames
members of the Reform Party. He even attended their UA
convention. This was after they actually voted non-confidence in
the Reform Party and said they could not govern. They wanted to
bring in the people left in the Conservative Party, the rest of
the Conservative Party, and were to do great things.
Jurassic Joe Clark must be having a field day. Have not all the
right wing fanatics gone out of the Conservative Party? Have
they not all gone to the Reform Party? Now they have voted
non-confidence in themselves and they are coming back. It is sad
to see a party, which actually had a chance to be a sound
official opposition, all of a sudden vote non-confidence in
itself and go around like a band of sheep wondering which way to
go. I have a problem with that, and I appreciate now that the
hon. member for Mississauga West has come in here to straighten
me out.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not at all. To support you.
Mr. John O'Reilly: I supported him, of course, but to
follow the hon. member for Mississauga West after he has inflamed
the hon. member for Wild Rose—
Mr. Steve Mahoney: He just threatened to punch me out.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Well, no doubt, and that is how they
would cure you.
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I fail to see the relevance of the hon. member's speech
given the fact that we are discussing youth crime.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure that the
hon. member is about to make a link between all that.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for coming in on the conversation and reminding me that I was
speaking to the amendment to Bill C-68, in fact the amendment in
all its glory. I know the hon. member wants to be leader of the
Reform Party. He has indicated that. I appreciate that he would
get up and get involved in doctoring the speech that is going on.
Anyway, he has some obviously good points that are almost
liberal in a sense and that would create some type of a problem
for his party. He would be an excellent candidate and I
appreciate him intervening.
Let us go back to the main talking points on Bill C-68. I am
speaking to the amendment because I already spoke to the bill and
I know the hon. member listened intently. I want to correct
something that I said when I was heckled by one of my own members
when I spoke to Bill C-68. I said that I had spent three years
in grade eight and that they were the happiest years of my life.
That is not true.
My wife asked me to have that corrected. It was actually the
member who had heckled me. I indicated those were the happiest
years of his life but it came out differently in Hansard.
1720
Going back to lowering the age to 14 and 15 years olds, that
part of the youth justice system was not addressed in the
original Young Offenders Act. Young offenders come from three
sectors. There are the very young first offenders who commit a
crime and are caught. Sometimes it is the very first crime they
have committed and they are caught. It may be a misdemeanour of
some type. They go into the justice system and for the first time
in their lives they are taught some values.
When they realize those values and are pressured by different
peers and not the peers or the gang they hang out with, many of
them are success stories. They actually spend time with people
who counsel them. They spend time with very intelligent lawyers.
We even have some in the back row who wail away here. They
spend some time with people who teach them values.
The part of the Reform Party's platform that always bothers me
is that it wants to pretend that this does not happen, that
people are not helped by the Young Offenders Act and are not put
on the right track.
I can give many instances of people who we deal with once and
they never come back into the justice system. They rearrange
their lives. They take the talent they have and use it to be
productive members of society. The lowering of the age to 14 or
15 years gives me the feeling that the bill is on the right
track.
When 14 to 17 year olds commit a very serious crime I do not see
anything wrong with publishing their names. Right now they could
go back into school without people knowing that they have
committed a serious crime. That part of the system has to change
so that educators know who they are dealing with when there are
violent offenders in their school system. If youths are
sentenced for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated
sexual assault or they repeat serious violent offences, their
names are then subject to publication.
We sometimes think publishing their names in the paper is what
this deals with. It is more than that. It is the publication of
their names so that the people who are dealing with them on a day
to day basis know their backgrounds and are able to come to grips
with them. They could be sitting in front of them in a
classroom. I am not taking about an elementary school system. I
am talking about training courses or rehabilitation courses,
whether it is Alcoholics Anonymous or courses dealing with people
who have come in contact with cocaine, marijuana, heroine or any
of those evil drugs that are out there and so easily available. A
person dealing with those people should know that a violent
reaction could happen at any time. The publication of names when
a judge considers them to be dangerous is a very important part
of the act.
It is very easy to tell if someone is dangerous. All we have to
do is look at their file or rap sheet to see the number of
convictions, arrests and times they have appeared before the
criminal courts. Bill C-68 is a very positive step toward have a
more refined justice system for youth but it will not stop
someone from committing a serious crime.
That will not happen.
1725
We have already heard the Reform Party saying that the Liberals
have this idea that the bill will be the be-all and the end-all.
Well, it will not. Once again I go back. We have to look at not
the simplistic approach but the systemic problems in society.
Until the government and all other parties deal with them our
chances of having a perfect society, which will never exist of
course, are diminished. This helps the people in the youth
justice system to better apply the power of the courts to help
youth, to rehabilitate them.
We are trying to make the public institutions a safer place to
work. In order to do that we require crime prevention. The only
way to have crime prevention is to educate people eliminate
poverty, lack of training, lack of education and sometimes the
lack of discipline. However, quite often, if we look at the
people we are dealing with, giving them another beating is not
the answer.
We have to find ways to deal with them that challenge them to do
something different with their lives and that challenge them to
have more confidence in themselves. A lack of confidence is the
largest problem in youth suicide. No matter where it is one is
too many. Lack of confidence and a lack of resources or ability
to cope comes from the lack of the basic essentials that one
needs in life.
People with money, people who are rich, still have suicides in
their families. It is not because they have given them too much.
It is because they have not given them the confidence. They do
not have the ability to cope with the pressures that are existing
today in society.
Bill C-68 is a good start in addressing our criminal justice
system for youth. When we seriously look at the bill in
committee and when we offer any kind of amendment to it, we
should take into account the research that was done on the bill
and the consultation that was done on it with the various people
that came forward and will still come forward to give submissions
on a bill which I think is worth the consideration of the House
to pass as quickly as possible.
I hope I have added something to the debate that will promote
Bill C-68 and a new youth justice system.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, extensive comment was made about the United Alternative.
I would like to say I was happy and proud to be at the United
Alternative conference.
There were 1,500 delegates from all over Canada. These
delegates were not associated with a given political party. They
came there as Canadians realizing that an alternative had to be
created to get rid of the federal government.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Selkirk—Interlake for his intervention on Bill C-68. I noted he
made some very deep thoughts and contributed to the promotion of
Bill C-68. I thank him for that. I know he is a strong
supporter of the youth justice system.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
* * *
1730
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to raise a question of privilege for you to
consider. I recently entered the building, after having returned
to my office. While in my office I heard a number of members in
this place stand to hurl abuses my way, which is fine in this
place. However, at the front door, on my way back, I encountered
two members of the Reform Party, the member for Blackstrap and
the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, who were having a cigarette, at
which time they proceeded to become very abusive toward me,
hurling insults. This is not the first time the member for
Okanagan—Shuswap has acted in this manner. He challenged me to
a physical encounter of some description. “Come on, let's go”,
he said and clenched his fists.
It is my job in this place to feel totally confident that I can
walk anywhere within these precincts, anywhere in the city of
Ottawa or anywhere in this country without having to endure the
kind of schoolyard bully tactics which these members have shown.
Because they do not have the ability to stand here and debate an
issue they attempt to attack and intimidate members in this
place.
I believe that my privileges have been violated by both of these
violent Reform members and I would like them to apologize.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I want to make
it absolutely clear that if any member is threatened anywhere
within the precincts of parliament it is indeed a very serious
matter. It is indeed a case of privilege. It will not be taken
lightly and should not be taken lightly. A very serious
accusation has been made by the member for Mississauga West. It
will be dealt with in a very serious manner.
If there are any other members who wish to intervene, I would
invite them to do so right now. We will start with the member
for Okanagan—Shuswap.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am one of the members he is talking about. What
happened outside is that nobody made any threats to the member
over there. As we were standing there he walked by us and called
us bigots. He also said that he would like us to do something
physically to his body that normally you would only have a female
person do if you were heterosexual. I took great exception to
that. When he walked in the door I asked him to come back out
to finish the discussion.
An hon. member: Was it physical?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: No, it was not, and there were lots
of witnesses out there. I want everybody in the House to know
that what the hon. member did out there was a total disgrace to
any member of parliament.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments you made from the chair, but the member
who raised the question of privilege failed to indicate that he
would move the appropriate motion. Therefore, having received
the caution which you have given to all members of the House, I
think the matter should now rest.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member for St. Albert for his sage advice. I will recognize the
hon. member for Blackstrap.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly would agree with you that it is the privilege of a
member of this House to feel quite comfortable and secure when
walking on the grounds or in the House. I completely agree with
you.
In response to the member's accusation, I would point out that
indeed there were many witnesses in front when this heated
discussion took place, and that goes without saying. I believe
there would be people out there who would say that the member for
Mississauga West was in fact the first to open the discussion, if
you want to call it that.
I would ask the House, on my behalf, to remind the member for
Mississauga West that he should be very careful with accusations
that I believe are false.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Are there any other
members who have anything to add to this?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: You're a liar, Stinson.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. We
are going to try to resolve this right now. The first thing we
are going to do is ask the hon. member for Mississauga West to
withdraw the most recent comment which had to do with calling
another member a liar. Would the hon. member for Mississauga
West please do so immediately?
1735
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you,
sir, I do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will now consider
the other very serious matter. This will be taken under
advisement. However, I would ask, given the fact that we are all
adults, that Private Members' Business proceed for the next hour.
I would ask all hon. members concerned to take a step back, to go
behind the curtains and resolve this issue as the gentlemen,
gentlewomen and distinguished leaders that we are.
I will be quite happy to take this up again. I will bring
forward a position before the end of Private Members' Business
today.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. While the member who raised the point of privilege felt
it was a serious issue, he did not specifically seek any redress.
He did not say that he would move any particular motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank the hon.
member for St. Albert. His comment is already on the table. I
thanked him once for his advice, but I will thank him again.
We will now proceed directly to Private Members' Business.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-484, an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence
for use of firearm in commission of offence), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to lead the debate on
Bill C-484. The purpose of my private member's bill is to amend
the Criminal Code so that any individual who uses a firearm in
the commission of certain criminal offences will receive an
additional sentence of incarceration, that being a consecutive
sentence.
The bill is referred to as the 10-20-life law, so the
consecutive sentences that I refer to would be 10 years if a
firearm is used in the commission of one of the named offences
that I will list shortly; 20 years if in the commission of that
offence the firearm is discharged; and a life sentence to be
added consecutively to the sentence that the individual receives
for the crime they commit if the discharge of that firearm causes
bodily harm to anyone other than the perpetrator of the crime or
an accomplice.
The list of the specific criminal offences to which this 10-20-
life law would apply are the following: murder, manslaughter,
attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm with intent, sexual
assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping,
hostage taking, robbery and extortion.
Currently section 85 of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum
sentence of one year and a maximum sentence of 14 years for the
commission of an indictable offence. In the case of a second
offence, a minimum of three years and a maximum of 14 years
applies.
1740
Those sentences referred to in section 85 currently are to be
served consecutively. That is the current law, but these
provisions apply to all indictable offences, including the ones I
listed. The significance is that the most violent offences are
treated the same as all other indictable offences. My bill lists
the most serious violent crimes and subjects them to the
provisions of the 10-20-life law.
In other jurisdictions similar laws are being passed. Most
notably, in 1997 the governor of California signed into law an
act amending California's state penal code to include a
10-20-life provision. Prior to that time there existed a similar
section of the California penal code which meted out three, four
or ten years for felony offences. It was actually four, five or
ten years in the case of carjacking, and five, six or ten years
if the firearm used was classified as an assault weapon.
The significance is that the changes which were made in 1997 in
California were in response to the success the law had in
deterring carjacking within that state. Carjackers knew they
would be subject to very stiff consecutive sentences for the
specific act of carjacking, which was a strong deterrent and the
number of carjackings dropped substantially.
I would submit to the House that the same principle applies, as
it clearly does, to the 10-20-life law. Criminals should know
that the use of a firearm will automatically add 10 years to the
sentence for the commission of one of these serious offences.
The discharge of that firearm in the commission of an offence
will automatically result in a consecutive sentence applied to
their original sentence for the commission of that crime, of 20
years, and if the discharge of that firearm causes someone bodily
harm they will be the recipient of an additional life sentence to
the original sentence for the crime they committed.
I do not want to become mired down in a lot of statistics, but
there are a couple of relevant statistics I would like to quote.
Between 1991 and 1995 half of all homicides in Canada involved
the use of a handgun. That number is 75% when looking only at
Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.
In 1995, 33% of violent crimes committed with a firearm resulted
in the victim being injured. In the case of assault or sexual
assault, the percentage of incidents in which the victim was
injured was over 50%.
Since 1934 in Canada we have had a handgun registry. It has
been a requirement that legally owned handguns be registered. We
can safely deduce from the statistics I have quoted that the
handgun registry has been an abject failure. It has not acted as
a deterrent to the criminal use of those handguns in any way,
shape or form. That is a very important point because what we
need to understand and what the Liberal government fails to
understand is that it is not the registration of a firearm that
deters criminal use, but rather the resulting consequence of
using that firearm to commit a serious violent crime.
In keeping with Reform Party policies and principles, we seek to
not target law-abiding firearms owners but the criminal use of
firearms.
I have drafted this bill with the intent for it to serve as a
deterrent to the criminal use of a firearm. There are three main
points I would like the Liberal government to understand.
1745
The first point is that unlike firearm registration this 10-20
life law does target the criminal element within our society. It
targets those who use firearms in the commission of an offence
against another person. That will have the effect of a
deterrent, contrary to what the registration of firearms would
do. We need look only as far as the handgun registry to see that.
The second point is the harsher sentencing provisions, not
firearms registration, but harsher sentences acting as a
deterrent to the criminal use of firearms.
The third point is this law would serve the purpose of
highlighting that using a firearm to commit a violent crime is
abhorrent to society. It is the will of Canadians that stronger
punitive sanctions be attached to those sections of the Criminal
Code.
I was very disappointed that the subcommittee which dealt with
my private member's bill did not deem it to be votable. For the
reasons I have just explained to the House, the obvious benefit
that a 10-20 life law would have in tightening the provisions of
the Criminal Code and therefore making our communities safer, our
society safer and establishing a clear understanding in society
that the criminal use of a firearm will not be tolerated and that
severe penalties will result, I seek the unanimous consent of the
House to deem my private member's bill votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, that is very unfortunate for
many reasons.
The Liberal government is refusing to enact legislation that
will make our streets, our communities, our society a safer place
and which will send a message to the criminal element that using
firearms to commit serious crimes is not something we are
prepared to tolerate in our society.
The Liberals should not care that it is a Reform member who
introduced the bill. I do not think that is relevant. They
should look at the issue and understand the facts and say this is
a good idea.
Why are they refusing to allow this bill to be votable? Are
they ashamed that their own justice minister did not think of it?
Or are they ashamed that their own justice minister refuses to
get tough on crime and instead engages in namby-pamby bills such
as the young offenders amendments that we were speaking about
today in the House? The changes to the Young Offenders Act are
merely a paint job on the old act but will still do nothing to
target the deficiencies in that act.
Or is their reason because they are obsessed with alienating
Canadians? On Tuesday we debated in the House all day the
alienation of the regions in the country. I spoke on behalf of
the residents of Saskatchewan and I spoke about the Liberal
alienation committee.
Here we have yet another example of alienation. A member from
Saskatoon, myself, has introduced a get tough on crime bill in
the House. It is a law that would improve our society by getting
tougher on criminals who use firearms instead of targeting the
law-abiding citizens like the Liberals are so intent on doing
with former Bill C-68, the firearms registration act.
They do not allow the committee to deem it a votable item and
they do not even allow me the consent in the House.
1750
For the benefit of Canadians watching, the significance of that
is at the end of this hour, debate on this bill will collapse and
that will be the end of it. They will not have to vote on it.
That is probably another reason that they refuse to allow this to
be deemed a votable bill. They do not want to stand up and let
Canadians from coast to coast watch them vote against a bill
which targets the criminal use of firearms. They seem to be
intent on firearms registration, targeting law-abiding firearms
owners.
Today we spent the day in the House of Commons debating some
very flimsy changes to the Young Offenders Act. Why is the
Liberal justice minister so preoccupied with bringing useless
legislation before the House instead of meaningful legislation
like the 10-20 life law? Why does she not introduce bills like
that?
Instead of tinkering with the Young Offenders Act, why does she
not introduce a victims bill of rights? Why does she not
establish that the rights of victims supersede any rights that a
criminal has? I will answer that question. It is because the
Liberal soft approach to crime is something they are obsessed
with and they refuse to let it go.
Canadians will not get proper legislation dealing with criminals
and fair legislation dealing with private ownership of firearms
until we have a Reform government.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS BY MEMBERS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we
recognize the next speaker, I undertook earlier to return to the
question of privilege by the member for Mississauga West.
As members may have seen, I had the privilege of speaking to all
of the members involved.
I want to state unequivocally how important it is that we treat
each other respectfully at all times and that no member at any
time feel threatened physically or emotionally. This is the
centre of our governance, of our civility as a nation. We have a
fiduciary duty to comport ourselves in a manner that brings
credit to each other, to this institution and to ourselves. As
the chair occupant, I want it understood clearly that there will
not be any actions by any member that bring discredit on this
House, which is bigger than all of us. What this institution
represents is bigger than all of us.
I have considered carefully the interventions given by everyone,
including the hon. member for St. Albert. I thank all members
for giving me their advice.
We are not going to take it any further because it has gone as
far as it needs to go. We are considering, by consensus, the
matter closed and we will speak no more of this particular
instance.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-484,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use
of firearm in commission of offence), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment you on your ruling.
Usually on Private Members' Business I compliment the members
for their initiative and hard work. I think it reflects well on
all of us for members to bring forward legislation and ideas that
need to be debated and considered by the House, ideas that do not
necessarily originate with the government.
1755
Usually I start out that way, but in this particular instance, I
believe this bill is just a waste of House time. This is simply
a bill which adds nothing to the debate and in fact is
counterproductive to many of the initiatives already undertaken
by the government.
To say that I oppose this bill is to be minimalist in the
matter. The bill proposes that there be more severe minimum
sentences to be served consecutively for 10 serious crimes all
committed with firearms, but by the same token that we ignore a
judicial and statutory foundation for our sentencing system.
I urge all hon. members to refer to section 718 of the Criminal
Code, which sets out the principles of sentencing, before they
get too far down the path which this bill is taking us.
In January 1996 the government implemented tough new penalties
for firearm related offences. New sections have been added,
provided that when a person is convicted of having committed
certain serious offences with a firearm, a mandatory minimum
sentence of four years in prison is now imposed. The 10 violent
provisions are: criminal negligence causing death; manslaughter;
attempted murder; causing bodily harm with intent; sexual assault
with a weapon; aggravated sexual assault; kidnapping; hostage
taking; robbery; and extortion.
In other words, people get four years minimum regardless. In
some respects it is a fettering of judicial discretion. On this
side of the House, we think that is an appropriate fettering of
judicial discretion.
We are satisfied that these new gun control measures are having
a positive effect in reducing the criminal use of firearms and
frankly see no need to amend the sentencing provisions at this
time.
There are several difficulties with Bill C-484 and I would like
to address them now.
By imposing severe minimum sentences, Bill C-484 does not
account for the fact that the criminal justice system judges have
discretion. That is fundamental to our system of law in this
country. They have discretion in sentencing convicted offenders
in order that the sentence may be tailored, and I emphasize
tailored, to the individual, taking into account the criminal
record and any other aggravating or extenuating circumstances.
I would like to draw attention to section 718 which sets out the
purpose and principles of sentencing:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along
with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the
maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just
sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing
offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims; and to
promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.
That is the purpose of our criminal justice system. It is a very
articulate piece of legislation.
Under the section with respect to the other sentencing
principles, a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into
consideration the following principles and it goes on to talk
about aggravating circumstances. But in the deemed aggravating
circumstances section, subsection (c), it says “where
consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should
not be unduly long or harsh”.
That is the essence of the flaw with this bill. If they are all
added up, offenders will be serving 10 years past a life
sentence. It is a bit of an absurdity. This absurdity would
lead to further absurdities.
It interferes with what in sentencing principles is called the
totality principle, when a sentencing judge orders an offender to
serve consecutive sentences, and this is lost on some hon.
members opposite. The Criminal Code already provides for
consecutive sentences. There are not simply concurrent
sentences. A judge has the discretion to order a concurrent
sentence.
I heard endless numbers of speeches from members opposite about
this issue. If a judge chooses to put in a concurrent sentence,
he or she can do so, but it must meet the principle of totality.
1800
The totality principle requires that a sentencing judge who
orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple
offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence does not exceed
the overall culpability of the offender. The effect of the
totality principle is to require the sentencer, i.e. the judge,
to pass a series of sentences, each properly calculated in
relation to the offence for which it is imposed and to be
properly made in accordance with the principles governing
sentencing principles.
In other words, there are no volume discounts. I will repeat
this. There are no volume discounts. In part, that is what the
bill is all about; that somehow or other, if we fetter the
discretion of judges, we will arrive at a more fair judicial
system, a more fair sentencing system.
May I respectfully suggest that it would be counterproductive if
the bill were allowed to go to a vote. I was glad to see that
hon. members had the wisdom to not make this a votable item.
The Criminal Code provides for minimum sentences in limited
circumstances. This is applicable to certain serious offences
and reflects society's intolerance toward more serious crimes.
With a four year minimum sentence for 10 serious crimes committed
with a firearm, the Criminal Code makes is clear that those
convicted of such offences should at a minimum spend at least
four years in a penitentiary. Judges still have discretion to
impose more severe sentences for particular crimes should they
deem it to be appropriate in all the circumstances.
May I say that having been in court and having listened to
judges, in all the circumstances they frequently listen to
literally days worth of testimony, frequently contradictory
testimony, and hear argument on both sides and, I would suggest,
with the greatest respect to members in the House, are in the
best position to decide what is or is not the appropriate
sentence.
The House gets to provide guidelines. The House gets to reflect
upon the moral imperatives of sentencing. The House gets to
suggest things. However, in the ultimate and final resolution of
matters, I would submit that we are prepared to defer to judicial
discretion in most areas.
When the government provided for this minimum sentence for these
10 serious crimes, the clear intent was to discourage individuals
from using firearms. Laws have been written with the objective
that in all likelihood they have to withstand constitutional
challenges. I have heard time and time again from members
opposite how there are charter problems, is this charterproof or
this horrible charter, although we all seem to think it is okay
when it works our way. When we do pass a law it does in fact
have to go through the lens of the charter. That is the law under
which we all live, including the House of parliament.
The bill needs to have a short and quick death. I could go on
to other significant problems. I have described how 718 works
and how a judge actually goes through the various issues that are
appropriate to sentencing an individual. We are all subject to
the rule of law and we are all subject to the constitution. They
put the discretion where it belongs: with the judge.
Bill C-484 panders to the worst in all of us. It panders to our
most basic emotions of fear and it purports to offer a solution
which in fact it does not. We have an illusion of protection if
somehow or other we add on all these sentences. It ignores many
of the principles upon which our judicial system is built. I
would urge all members to simply ask for the bill to die a quick
and painless death.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-484, introduced by my Reform Party
colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. The purpose of
this bill is to amend the Criminal Code with respect to
consecutive sentencing for the use of a firearm in the
commission of an offence.
More specifically, this bill is intended to amend section 85 of
the Criminal Code, as well as several other sections of the
Criminal Code that I will deal with a bit later.
1805
Section 85 currently states that:
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an
offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death),
236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily
harm with intent—firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon),
273 (aggravated sexual assault), 279 (kidnapping), 279.1
(hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),
The bill as it stands is aimed at changing section 85, with the
exception of all the crimes I have just listed.
Section 85 also addresses the use of a firearm while attempting
to commit an indictable offence, or during flight after
committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence, and
committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence or
during flight after committing or attempting to commit an
indictable offence using an imitation firearm, all of which are
indictable offences punishable, in the case of a first offence,
by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, with a
minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
In the case of a repeat offence, the maximum penalty is fourteen
years and the minimum three years. This is what is set out in
the Criminal Code at the present time. It also calls for these
sentences to be served consecutive to any other sentence.
The Criminal Code is already clear enough on the use of firearms
in violent crimes.
So, what amendments does our Reform
colleague want to introduce? First—and I am sure everyone here
is rather surprised—Bill C-484 amends section 85 by increasing the
sentences provided as follows: a minimum of ten years, if the
firearm is not discharged; 20 years if the firearm was
discharged—he missed here—and 25 years if the firearm was
discharged and an individual other than anyone participating in
the offence is caused bodily harm. So the change is from a
maximum sentence of 14 years to a minimum of 25 years. This is
no small change.
In the same breath, the member proposes that the same
supplemental sentences be included in sections 235, 236, 239,
244, 272, 279.1, 344 and 346, all of which, with the exception
of section 235, are excluded from the application of the
existing section 85.
This is the purpose of this bill. Let us look now at its
effects.
I must say right off that the phenomenon of violent crime,
particularly that involving firearms, is extremely serious and
distressing. However, the more repressive approach, which
imposes excessive sentences, in my opinion or in the opinion of
many of those involved in the area in Quebec, will not
necessarily reduce crime.
Our neighbours to the south, the United States of America, have
a per capita rate of incarceration that is one of the highest in
the west.
It is also a country where, although a large number of states
have reintroduced the death penalty, the crime rate has not
dropped accordingly. This shows that repressive measures are
not what reduce crime.
1810
Another very troubling feature of Bill C-484 is that, by
providing for very tough minimum sentences, it reduces the
discretionary power of courts to hand down sentences that take
into account the circumstances under which offences were
committed. It is as though suddenly judges were not allowed to
exercise their judgment.
Under our criminal justice system, sentences can be adjusted to
fit the crime and the person that committed it.
This is described as taking into account the subjective and
objective gravity of an offence. The subjective gravity has to
do with the circumstances surrounding the person charged with
the offence and the objective gravity has to do with identifying
the extenuating or aggravating circumstances under which the
offence was committed.
By substantially increasing the minimum sentences for all
imaginable circumstances, the member is attempting to turn the
Criminal Code into a strict set of instructions with no room for
judicial discretion. This runs counter to a long-recognized
principle essential to the enforcement of justice.
Another important principle is flouted here.
This is the principle prohibiting multiple convictions
established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Kienapple v. The
Queen. Under this principle, a person may not be convicted
under different sections having the same elements. A person
cannot be charged twice for the same offence.
In the bill before us, this principle is set aside. For
instance, convicting someone of robbery, or armed robbery, and
giving them an additional ten-year minimum sentence for
committing the offence with a firearm is simply ridiculous. Yet
this is what the bill does by introducing the concept of dual
conviction, when in fact both offences include the same
essential elements flowing from the same case and the same
offence.
In any democratic system, the Kienapple principle is very
important.
No self-respecting justice system would consider supporting such
a bill.
Last, but not least, if this bill were passed, it would almost
certainly violate section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms under which everyone has the right not to be
subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
In fact, the courts have already questioned the
constitutionality of the one-year sentence now provided for in
section 85 of the Criminal Code. It goes without saying that a
minimum sentence of 10 years would violate section 12 and would
certainly fail the reasonability test of section 1 of the
Charter. This is not the first time the Reform Party has taken
leave of its senses.
For all these reasons, I am unable to support the bill and,
speaking for the Bloc Quebecois, I am certainly not alone.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-484,
an act to amend the Criminal Code so that any individual who uses
a firearm in the commission of certain criminal offences will
receive an additional sentence of incarceration.
What is behind this legislation? The member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt who introduced the bill made reference to old
Bill C-68 with which there is a lot of concern particularly in
the regions of Canada that a lot of innocent people who use
firearms are being asked to jump through a lot of hoops
unnecessarily and the criminal element is in a sense overlooked.
1815
As we speak today thousands and thousands of people who perhaps
would seldom use firearms for anything other than the occasional
hunting trip or the occasional trip out to the shooting gallery
or the gun club are being asked to go through a process in an
effort to make our country a safer place.
I suppose one could make the argument that another way to
approach it would be to say to people who use firearms to
participate in some kind of criminal activity that we will come
down extremely heavy on them. The misuse of a firearm is
something we simply do not want to tolerate. We are not
particularly concerned about people who use firearms for
recreational purposes, for international competitions and so on.
We are concerned about the people who misuse firearms.
My friend has introduced a private member's bill as a way to say
to individuals that if they use firearms to participate in a
crime the penalties, if found guilty, will be much more severe.
That is how we could summarize this legislation.
It also suggests the whole issue of consecutive sentencing of
10, 20 or in some cases 25 years. If individuals are found
guilty of committing a crime while carrying a firearm, whether it
is a pistol, rifle, shotgun or whatever, 10 years would be added
to their sentence.
This sends a signal to people that as a society we will not
tolerate this behaviour. If individuals participate in criminal
activity while carrying a firearm and the firearm is discharged
not necessarily causing any harm but to shoot at a person or
shoot to frighten or whatever, their sentence will be increased
to 20 years after the time for the original offence has been
served. If they happen to actually cause bodily harm the
sentence will be increased by 25 years.
We could argue about whether these terms of 10, 20 or 25 years
are appropriate. We are trying to send a very clear message to
people that we do not appreciate their participating in criminal
activities, but if they use a firearm to assist in carrying out a
dastardly deed we will be particularly hard on them.
What are these offences? For greater certainty the sponsor of
the bill has included a number of offences. I will name them
because I think it is important. Murder is included as are
manslaughter, attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm with
intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault,
kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. All these are
dastardly crimes.
As a society we have clearly said we do not tolerate robbery or
kidnapping. For various reasons people participate in these
activities. A whole other element is added when a firearm is
carried while the crime is being conducted. This tells
individuals being kidnapped or robbed that if they do not behave
as the criminal wants them to, their lives will be taken. They
will be maimed. They will be shot. Very serious bodily harmed
will be caused. It adds another dimension to the process. It is
one thing to rob a person but it is another to hold up a person
with a firearm.
I like the legislation. I do not know if these are the
appropriate terms. I do not know if there should be other
additions to the member's list. The purpose of this debate is to
move the legislation forward. If it were to move forward we
would go into committee where we would hear witnesses and perhaps
fine-tune the legislation. This is sort of a first draft or a
first run through. For that reason I am generally in favour of
the legislation.
1820
I have tried to come to grips with the whole issue of firearm
control in Canada. I know we have all been lobbied hard by
representatives on both sides of the issue. I am convinced that
the legislation we used to refer to as Bill C-68, the firearms
control act, will not have any appreciable effect on reducing the
amount of violent crime in society. It will not have much of an
impact on reducing the misuse of firearms.
When we look at the deaths caused each year by firearms, very
few are the result of a person actually shooting somebody. It is
the result of somebody's gun going off. It is the result of a
domestic dispute. It is the result of a hunting accident. We
have to ask ourselves if that firearm were registered would there
not still be that homicide. If you are in a domestic dispute and
your firearm is registered, are you going to say that you
probably should not kill that person because it is registered?
You have lost control and you are probably going to misuse that
firearm.
We are not talking about whether firearms should exist or not.
We are talking about the whole process of Bill C-68 and the
registration of firearms. Having looked at that carefully, I do
not think it will be very effective.
However, will this be effective? What if we were to tell people
that if they misuse a firearm while participating in a crime the
penalties will be significantly increased? We would all agree
that 10, 20 or 25 years in jail is a very serious penalty. I
might add that is a consecutive penalty. It is added on after
the first penalty. I would question whether it would act as a
deterrent. I suspect it probably would. I would like to hear
evidence on whether it would or would not, but I guess we will
have a chance to debate that in the future.
In 1995 Statistics Canada indicated that 33% of violent crimes
committed with a firearm resulted in the victim being injured. In
cases involving assault and sexual assault that number rises to
over 50%. We are talking about this legislation having very
serious implications.
When people participate in or are involved with extortion,
aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon and so
on, it often results in bodily harm and often leads to death. It
is something we have to take a lot more seriously. I would like
to seek unanimous consent to have a vote on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to offer the comments of the Progressive
Conservative Party on Bill C-484. The PC Party believes in
consecutive sentences to get tough on criminals. The PC Party
also believes in legislation that gets tough on criminals who use
firearms in the commission of an offence. The PC Party believes
that by getting tough on criminals of all ages while offering and
supporting meaningful programs for their rehabilitation, we can
create a safe society for all Canadians.
However, we do not believe that Bill C-484 will be able to
remedy all the degenerative legislation that has been enacted
over the past six years by a Liberal government that is soft on
crime. For example, this legislation could be rendered useless
due to Liberal initiatives such as conditional sentencing.
This Liberal initiative has already been applied to rapists so
why should we not believe that it would not be liberally applied
to offenders falling under the auspices of Bill C-484?
Conversely, we feel Bill C-484 is disproportionate to the rest of
the Criminal Code in terms of the proposed sentences offered to
criminals who fall under the bill.
If the government would commit to sensible gun control
legislation that did not discriminate against law-abiding gun
owners, and if it would follow the lead of its own MPs and commit
to consecutive sentencing, the opposition parties would not feel
the need to propose amendments to correct such bad legislation.
1825
Since the Liberals came into power in 1993 they have tried to
paint themselves as champions of justice and protectors of the
public interest. In doing so they have promoted gun control
legislation through basic, simplistic terms that played on the
fears of a public fearful for its own public safety.
It is obvious now that the Reform Party too is falling victim to
this Liberal image doctoring as its proposed amendments are
playing right into the hands of Liberal ideals concerning gun
control.
Instead of creating more negative firearms publicity through the
bill, the Reform Party should be blasting the Liberals for their
soft stand on crime. If the Liberals took a harder stance on
issues such as youth and organized crime, if they listened to
their colleagues and passed legislation on consecutive
sentencing, and if they gave our police forces the proper funding
needed to enforce the law, there would be no need for constant
Criminal Code amendments to correct bad Liberal legislation.
Meaningful legislation would allow people to feel safe in the
towns and cities of Canada. They would feel safe enough that the
anti-gun lobby would not be forced to create its propaganda that
also affects law-abiding gun owners in an adverse manner.
Our party supports the noble basis of Bill C-484, as it is
steeped in the ideal of public safety. However, we are tempered
by difficulties that this proposed legislation will encounter
when confronted with existing, backward Liberal legislation. In
noting this inevitable confrontation, we feel that the following
problems will ensue.
First and foremost, our party has made it abundantly clear that
the Liberal government has and continues to enact firearms
legislation that discriminates against law-abiding gun owners.
The Liberals are famous for being parochial fence-sitters that
manoeuvre in the middle ground so as to avoid committing to
anything that may damage their popularity. After all, the
Liberals have continually proven that their objective is to
support any popular cause as long as it ensures their
re-election. The result is a government with no foresight and no
platform other than that of doing whatever is necessary to be
re-elected.
As I previously mentioned, the issue of gun control is one that
was very easy for the Liberals to be seen as the champions of
justice for the Canadian people. With violent images of crime
being broadcast nightly into the living rooms of Canadians, the
Liberals gained widespread support by saying that Canada had to
get tougher gun registration laws to cut down on the availability
of guns to the public. They quickly translated this tugging of
Canadian heart strings into the now infamous Bill C-68, which is
as disappointing as the current Bill C-68 debated today.
Neglecting the fact that this bill would cost taxpayers hundreds
of millions of dollars to implement and that it would take up to
233 years to register all Canadian firearms, the Liberals went
ahead with the legislation championing themselves as the
protectors of the Canadian public.
It is easy to see the effectiveness of the legislation now that
the initial hype has been tempered by harsh reality. For
example, the Liberal government that will do anything to avoid
controversy has now come face to face with law-abiding gun owners
who are protesting Bill C-68 as it discriminates against them
with an ineffective, time consuming registration process.
In continuing with the theme of Liberal legislation that led to
harsh realty, last week there was the occurrence of an absolute
tragedy at the OC Transpo depot in Ottawa. The fact is that the
Liberal's Bill C-68 would not have prevented a person like Pierre
Lebrun from buying the gun used to facilitate his horrific
killing spree.
This is what happens when dealing with a government that has no
ideology or focus. It was popular and thus politically safe to
implement legislation like Bill C-68. The Liberals must have
felt that discriminating against law-abiding groups of gun owners
would be a necessary evil but well worth it when compared to the
support they would gain through an emotional subject like gun
control.
1830
However, in the Liberals' push for popularity they neglected to
deal with the real issue at hand. If the Liberals—and in the
case of Bill C-484, the Reform Party—would focus their efforts
on the root causes of crime, we would not need Bill C-484, which
will only bring more negative propaganda against gun owners.
We need to remember that the gun itself does not commit the
crime. Therefore, we need to focus on stopping the real causes
of crime, such as unemployment, poverty and the lack of
protection from non-rehabilitated offenders who are released too
soon due to concurrent sentencing and prison release quotas.
However, these problems are not as easily dealt with. Thus, we
will not see the Liberals or the Reform Party delve into these
issues and risk their popularity.
The second caution which our party would like to make has to do
with the idea of amending the Criminal Code. Amending the
Criminal Code can be a dangerous practice as it involves some of
our society's most fundamental beliefs. Although these beliefs
relate specifically to the manner in which our society
disciplines itself, they also overlap into other areas, such as
the charter of rights and freedoms.
Thus, if society was allowed to make amendments every time the
Criminal Code fell afoul of popular opinion, we would make
changes in haste that could adversely affect significant portions
of society, and because such changes would be made in response to
popular public opinion, it would leave minority groups
unprotected from the tyranny of the majority.
We need to have faith in our judicial system which allows our
judges to interpret the Criminal Code as it relates to an
individual case. Although the system is not perfect, it allows
for thoughtful, non-partisan decisions to be rendered and it
allows for appeals of the process to be heard.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend my hon. colleague from Kamloops for his well thought out
speech and I appreciate his attempt to have this private member's
bill deemed votable, as I did myself. Clearly he has far more
respect for the democratic process than any Liberal MP in this
House, which brings to me to the comments of the member for
Scarborough East who stated that the bill is a waste of time.
That comment is insulting and is typical of Liberal arrogance.
More importantly, it underscores their soft on crime approach and
their reluctance and unwillingness to deal with the criminal
element in our society.
Why do they insist on protecting criminals instead of
law-abiding citizens? Why will they not enact legislation which
makes our communities and our society safer?
We have been pressuring them to remove section 745. It is the
provision that allows first degree murderers to be released on to
the street after serving only 15 years in prison. That is a
Liberal policy. The conditional sentences say to criminals who
have committed violent acts “Just don't do it again and we will
let you go”.
Then there is the Young Offenders Act. The member for
Mississauga West ranted on and on about how radical the Reform
Party is for wanting to have young offenders named.
I live in a nice community in Saskatoon. I submit that I have a
right to know if some youth who lives on my street is a criminal.
If one of my neighbour's kids engages in some criminal activity,
breaking into people's houses, stealing cars or is trafficking
drugs, I have a right to know because I have a family. It is
shameful that the Liberal member for Mississauga West would stand
in this House and say it is okay to deny Canadians the right to
know when people living beside them are criminals.
1835
He also said that it was his preference to defer to judicial
discretion, which is also the preference of all Liberal members
of parliament. As we know, recently a court in British Columbia
ruled that it is a violation of our constitutional rights to not
be allowed to possess child pornography. As we know, Reform
Party members found that absolutely disgraceful and we urged the
government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the
judge in that case because possession of child pornography is a
crime and it must be considered a crime. Did the Liberals stand
to defend the children who are the victims of child pornography?
No.
Sixty-eight Liberals signed a letter asking the Prime Minister
to do exactly the same thing which we asked for two weeks later
in the House, but the Prime Minister cracked his whip and the
backbench flock of sheep stepped into line. Their approach to
crime is absolutely disgraceful and all Canadians ought to know
that this Liberal government is refusing to act to make our
streets safer.
My private member's bill today is a simple, straightforward
attempt to target the criminal use of firearms. What could be
simpler? What could be more straightforward?
The member for Scarborough East said that it panders to our
emotions of fear. We do have fear. I talk to elderly people all
the time who say that at night they are scared to walk down the
street. When they see a group of young people approaching, they
get scared.
What kind of culture have we created in our society? Why do we
not act now to implement laws which change that? Why do we not
enact laws that target the criminal use of firearms instead of
law-abiding citizens who use firearms for legitimate purposes?
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as all members of
the House know, the purpose in passing the Firearms Act was not
to crack down on crime; it was to confiscate legally owned
firearms from all citizens in Canada.
I want to conclude by saying that it is very unfortunate that
the undemocratic Liberal members of parliament refuse to allow my
proposal for a 10-20-life law to come to a vote in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 4 I posed a question to the Minister of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women relating to the issue of
family taxation and whether the Income Tax Act was the only
instrument that was relevant in that discussion.
The issue is much broader and the secretary of state I think
made it very clear to the House that it was much broader. Not
only do we have a child care expense deduction available to
families, we also have a spousal amount, a non-refundable tax
credit, that is available to families where there is only one
earner. We also have the Canadian child tax benefit, which is
not taxable, as well as the national child benefit program.
In addition, under the employment insurance program we have
provisions for parental leave. We also have wage and training
subsidies which are available for parents who have taken parental
leave and would like to get back into the workforce. In that
case we also provide benefits for families with children.
Finally, under the Canada pension plan there is what is referred
to as the child rearing drop-out, which ensures that parents who
withdraw from the workforce to raise children are not unduly
penalized for having low income years of service in the
calculation of their Canada pension benefits.
The minister is quite right. There are a broad range of issues
that we must balance to ensure that we are fully aware of the
whole menu of areas in which the Government of Canada, and in
fact the taxpayers of Canada, support families with children.
This issue has now been referred to a subcommittee of the
Standing Committee on Finance to address the issues of fairness
and equity and how we deal with families with children. However,
it is a children's issue more than it is a tax issue.
It is a children's issue and if we value our children we must
also, as the minister knows, value our caregivers.
1840
As the finance subcommittee does its work, there are some
principles that have to be taken into account. We have to have
some guideposts in the work we are doing so that we understand
there are certain things that really should be reflected in the
policy of the government on behalf of taxpayers. I had given some
thought to some of the principles we might apply in developing
policy. I would like to put them on the record for the
minister's consideration. I am going to ask for her comment.
First of all our policy should be child centred and promote the
best interest of the child to the greatest extent possible.
Second, it should presume that parents are the primary caregivers
and that they are in the best position to determine what
constitutes the best possible care for their children. Third,
our policy should provide flexibility, options and choices which
will make it feasible for either parent to be a caregiver or to
be in the paid workforce. The fourth item is that our policy
should be inclusive and responsive to the social realities,
circumstances and preferences of parents and their children.
Finally, our policy should be fair and equitable and be seen to
be fair and equitable and neither penalize nor compel specific
caregiving choices.
I believe these are some principles that we can consider as a
starting point in terms of how we should shape our policies so
that they reflect principles and criteria which will be fair and
equitable to all families regardless of their configuration,
whether they be one income earner families, or two. No matter
what the configuration, certain principles must guide us. I would
ask the minister for her comments.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's
question. In asking his question he has shown that he grasps the
issue and that he understands what is at stake.
Families have changed. There was a social infrastructure to
meet the needs of families in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s
and those worked very well. We have found that families have
changed since then.
Families come in many different configurations as the hon.
member said. We have two parent families where one parent works
and one parent stays at home. We have single parent families
where the lone parent works. We have single parent families
where the lone parent stays at home. We have blended families
where both parents go out to work.
The question is how do we meet the needs of these families as a
government in a way that gives them the choices they need and
which recognizes the stresses these families face today. They are
stresses in terms of making tough decisions about how they meet
their income needs, their caregiving needs, how they spend their
time. The message we have heard is loud and clear.
Families are under pressure, especially families with children.
They are not only under pressure for the caregiving of their
children. We now know that families are under pressure for the
caregiving of the seniors. Their parents are coming home to live
with them. These same families also have disabled persons that
they are looking after. They are supporting the system because
they are looking after the terminally ill and the chronically ill
in the home. The pressure that puts on families means the choices
they make must be flexible. The choices they make must meet
their needs so that as the member says, they are not unduly
penalized.
The issues are not only about the income tax system. There were
some answers there. The hon. member is absolutely right. We
need to talk about pensionable earnings. How do families plan
for pension? The Canada pension plan is one way. Other forms of
pension would be another way. How do we look at parental leave,
at a caregiving subsidy of some kind? How do we look at the ways
in which we help these families cope, across the policy
initiatives, parental leave or otherwise, so that we can assist
families with the problems they face?
It is a complex issue. This government has the number one place
in the world today to figure out these issues and look at ways in
which to deal with them.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)